Skip to main content

Full text of "Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, A select library of : A new series translated into English with prolegomena and explanatory notes"

See other formats







HENRY    WAGE,    D.I),     AND     PHILIP    SCHAFF,    D.D.     LL.D., 


Priuci    il  of  King's  College, 












PKINTKD  itv    MKSSRS.    I'AKKFK  ,\:  Co.   AT  TIIKIK 


THE  First  Series  of  the  Nicene  and  Post-Nicene  Library  of  the  Christian  Fathers,  con- 
taining, in  fourteen  volumes,  the  principal  works  of  St.  Augustin  and  St.  Chrysostom,  has 
been  completed  in  less  than  four  years,  according  to  the  Prospectus  of  the  Publisher  issued 

in    1886. 

I  am  happy  to  state  that  the  Second  Scries,  containing  the  chief  works  of  the  Fathers 
from  Eusebius  to  John  of  Damascus,  and  from  Ambrose  to  Gregory  the  Great,  will  be  issued 
on  the  same  liberal  terms,  as  announced  by  the  Publisher. 

The  present  volume  opens  the  Second  Series  with  a  new  translation  and  critical  commen- 
tary of  the  historical  works  of  Eusebius,  by  my  friends,  Dr.  Arthur  C.  McGiffcrt  and  Dr. 
Ernest  C.  Richardson,  who  have  bestowed  a  vast  amount  of  labor  of  love  on  their  tasks 
for  several  years  past.  I  desired  them  to  make  these  works  a  reliable  and  tolerably  com- 
plete Church  History  of  the  first  three  centuries  for  the  English  reader.  I  think  they  have 
succeeded.  Every  scholar  will  at  once  see  the  great  value  and  superiority  of  this  over  every 
other  previous  edition  of  Eusebius. 


NF.W  YORK,  March,   1890. 

[For  such  alterations  and  additions  as  have  been  made  in  the  English  issue  the  Oxford 
Publishers  are  alone  responsible.] 

August,   1890. 


PREFACE  BY  THE  GENERAL  EDITOR  .............................  .................................  U1 



PREFACE  ..............................................                                                .........  Vli 

PROLEGOMENA:  THE  LIFE  AND  WRITINGS  OF  EUSEISIUS  OF  C/ESAREA  ..                                      .....  I 

THE  CHURCH  HISTORY  .................................................................  73 


SUPPLEMENTARY  NOTES  AND  TABLES    ................................................ 



PREFACE  ................................................ 

PK(  1LEGOMENA  :    CONSTANTINE   THE   GREAT  .................................................. 


LIFE  OF  CONSTANTINE  ........................................ 


ORATION  IN  PRAISE  OF  CONSTANTINE  ................................................... 

INDEX  OF  TEXTS  REFERRED  TO  IN  THE  CHURCH  HISTORY  ......................  •  •  6l3 








THE  present  translation  of  the  Church  History  of  Eusebius  has  been  made  from  Heinichen's 
second  edition  of  the  Greek  text,  but  variant  readings  have  been  adopted  without  hesitation 
whenever  they  have  approved  themselves  to  my  judgment.     In  all  such  cases  the  variation  from 
Heinichen's  text  has  been  indicated  in  the  notes.     A  simple  revision  of  Cruse's  English  version 
was  originally  proposed,  but  a  brief  examination  of  it  was  sufficient  to  convince  me  that  a  satis- 
factory revision  would  be  an  almost  hopeless  task,  and  that  nothing  short  of  a  new  and  indepen- 
dent translation   ought  to   be   undertaken.      In  the  preparation  of  that  translation    invaluable 
assistance  has  been  rendered  by  my  father,  the  Rev.  Joseph  N.  McGiffert,  D.D.,  for  whose  help 
and  counsel  I  desire  thus  publicly  to  give  expression  to  my  profound  gratitude.     The  entire 
translation  has  been  examined  by  him  and  owes  much  to  his  timely  suggestions  and  criticisms ; 
while  the  translation  itself  of  a  considerable  portion  of  the  work   (Bks.  V.-VIII.  and  the  Martyrs 
of  Palestine)  is  from  his  hand.     The  part  thus  rendered  by  him  I  have  carefully  revised  for  the 
purpose  of  securing  uniformity  in  style  and  expression  throughout  the  entire  work,  and  I  there- 
fore hold  myself  alone  responsible  for  it  as  well  as  for  the  earlier  and  later  books.     As  to  the 
principle  upon  which  the  translation  has  been  made,  little  need  be  said.     The  constant  endeavor 
has  been  to  reproduce  as  nearly  as  possible,  both  the  substance  and  form  of  the  original,  and 
in  view  of  the  peculiar  need  of  accuracy  in  such  a  work  as  the  present,  it  has  seemed  better  in 
doubtful  cases  to  run  the  risk  of  erring  in  the  direction  of  over-literalness  rather  than  in  that  of 
undue  license. 

A  word  of  explanation  in  regard  to  the  notes  which  accompany  the  text  may  not  be  out  of 
place.     In  view  of  the  popular  character  of  the  series  of  which  the  present  volume  forms  a  part  it 
seemed  important  that  the  notes  should  contain  much  supplementary  information  in  regard  'to 
persons,  places,  and  events  mentioned  in  the  text  which  might  be  quite  superfluous  to  the  profes- 
sional historian  as  well  as  to  the  student  enjoying  access  to  libraries  rich  in  historical  and  biblio- 
graphical material,  and  I  have  therefore  not  felt  justified  in  confining  myself  to  such  questions  as 
might  interest  only  the  critical  scholar.     Requested  by  the  general  editor  to  make  the  work  in 
some  sense  a  general  history  of,  or  historical  commentary  upon,  the  first  three  centuries  of  the 
Christian  Church,  I  have  ventured  to  devote  considerable  space  to  a  fuller  presentation  of  various 
subjects  but  briefly  touched  upon  or  merely  referred  to  by  Eusebius.     At  the  same  time  my  chief 
endeavor  has  been,  by  a  careful  study  of  difficult  and  disputed  points,  to  do  all  that  I  could  for 
their  elucidation,  and  thus  to  perform  as  faithfully  as  possible  the  paramount  duty  of  a  commen- 
tator.    The  number  and  fulness  of  the  notes  needed  in  such  a  work  must  of  course  be  matter  of 
dispute,  but  annoyed  as  I  have  repeatedly  been  by  the  fragmentary  character  of  the  annotations 
in  the  existing   editions  of  the  work,  I  have  been  anxious  to  avoid  that  defect,  and  have  there- 
fore passed  by  no  passage  which  seemed  to  me  to  need  discussion,  nor  consciously  evaded  any 
.ifficulty.     Working  with  historical  students  constantly  in  mind  I  have  felt  it  due  to  them  to  for- 
tify all  my  statements  by  references  to  the  authorities  upon  which  they  have  been  basrd,  and  to 
indicate  at  the  same  time  with  sufficient  fullness  the  sources  whose  examination  a  fuller  investi- 
gation  of  the   subject  on  their  part  might  render  necessary.      The  modern  works  which  have 
been   most  helpful  are  mentioned  in  the  notes,  but  I  cannot  in  justice  refrain  from  making  espe- 

viii  PREFACE. 

cial  reference  at  this  point  to  Smith  and  Wace's  Dictionary  of  CJiristian  Biography  which  has 
been  constantly  at  my  side,  and  to  the  first  and  second  volumes  of  Schaff's  Church  History, 
whose  bibliographies  have  been  especially  serviceable.  Many  of  Valesius'  notes  have  been  found 
very  suggestive  and  must  always  remain  valuable  in  spite  of  the  great  advance  made  in  historical 
knowledge  since  his  day.  For  the  commentary  of  Heinichen  less  can  be  said.  Richardson's 
Bibliographical  Synopsis,  published  as  a  supplement  to  the  Ante-Nicene  Library,  did  not  come 
into  my  hands  until  the  greater  part  of  the  work  was  completed.  In  the  preparation  of  the  notes 
upon  the  latter  portion  it  proved  helpful,  and  its  existence  has  enabled  me  throughout  the  work 
to  omit  extended  lists  of  books  which  it  would  otherwise  have  been  necessary  to  give. 

It  was  my  privilege  some  three  years  ago  to  study  portions  of  the  fourth  and  fifth  books  of 
Eusebius'  Church  History  with  Professor  Adolf  Harnack  in  his  Seminar  at  Marburg.  Especial 
thanks  are  due  for  the  help  and  inspiration  gained  from  that  eminent  scholar,  and  for  the  light 
thrown  by  him  upon  many  difficult  passages  in  those  portions  of  the  work. 

It  gives  me  pleasure  also  to  express  my  obligation  to  Dr.  Isaac  (\.  Hall,  of  New  York,  and  to 
Dr.  E.  C.  Richardson,  of  Hartford,  for  information  furnished  by  them  in  regard  to  certain  edi- 
tions of  the  History,  also  to  the  Rev.  Charles  R.  Gillett,  Librarian  of  Union  Theological  Seminary, 
and  to  the  Rev.  J.  H.  Dulles,  Librarian  of  Princeton  Theological  Seminary,  for  their  kindness 
in  granting  me  the  privileges  of  the  libraries  under  their  charge,  and  for  their  unfailing  cour- 
tesy shown  me  in  many  ways.  To  Mr.  James  McDonald,  of  Shelbyville,  Ky.,  my  thanks  are  due 
for  his  translation  of  the  Testimonies  for  and  against  Eusebius,  printed  at  the  close  of  the  Pro- 
legomena, and  to  Mr.  E.  E.  Moore,  of  New  Albany,  Ind.,  for  assistance  rendered  in  connection 
with  the  preparation  of  the  indexes. 

April  15, 



sj    I .  Sources  and   1  .iterature 

§   2.  Eusebius'  birth  an<l  training.      His  life  in  (\vsarca  until  the  outbreak  of  the  persecution  .  .  3 

§    }.  The  persecution  of  Diocletian 

§  4.  Eusebius'  accession  to  the  bishopric   of  C;esarea 

§   5.  The  outbreak  of  the  Arian  controversy.     The  attitude  of  Eusebius  ,,  11 

§  6.  The  Council  of  Xici^a '9 

§   7.  Continuance  of  the  Arian  controversy.      Eusebius'  relations  to  the  two  parties.  ...  21 

§   8.  Eusebius  and   Marcellus 25 

§  9.  The  death  of  Eusebius 25 

CHAPTER  II. — Till'.    \VKITINCS  OK  Ersi-.Birs. 

§    I .  Eusebius  as  a  writer 

§   2.  Catalogue  of  his  works 

CHAPTER  III.— Ei'sK.iiirs'   CIH;KCH    HISTORY. 

§    I.  Date  of  its  composition 45 

§   2.  The  author's  design 4" 

§   3.  Eusebius  as  a  historian.     The  merits  and  defects  of  his  History 46 

§   4.  Editions   and  versions 52 

§   5.  Literature 55 

TK.SI  IMOMKS    OK    Til  K     ANCIK.NTS    IN     E.\VoK    ol      El  'SKlil  1  'S 57 

TKM  iMoMKs  OK   i  UK.  A.NCIKN'IS  ACAINST   l',i  SKKITS 67 

VOL.   I. 






§  i.     Sou  rces  and  Literature. 

ACACirs,  the  pupil  and  successor  of  Eusebius  in  the  bishopric  of  Ca-sarea,  wrote  a  life  of  the  latter  (Socr. 
//.  I1'..  II.  4)  which  is  unfortunately  lost.  He  was  a  man  of  ability  (Sozomen  //.  I-',.  III.  2,  IV.  23)  and  had 
exceptional  opportunities  for  producing  a  full  and  accurate  account  of  Eusehius'  life;  the  disappearance  of  his 
work  is  therefore  deeply  to  be  regretted. 

Numerous  notices  of  Eusebius  are  found  in  the  works  of  Socrates,  Sozomen,  Theodoret,  Athanasius,  Jerome, 
and  other  writers  of  his  own  and  subsequent  ages,  to  many  of  which  references  will  be  made  in  the  following 
pages.  A  collection  of  these  notices,  made  by  Valesius,  is  found  in  English  translation  on  p.  57  sq.  of  this 
volume.  The  chief  source  for  a  knowledge  of  Kuselmis'  life  and  character  is  to  be  found  in  his  own  works.  These 
will  be  discussed  below,  on  p.  26  sq.  Of  the  numerous  modern  works  which  treat  at  greater  or  less  length  of 
the  life  of  Eusebius  I  shall  mention  here  only  those  which  I  have  found  most  valuable. 

VAI.F.SICS:  /A-  vita  scriplisque  Ensebii  Diatribe  (in  his  edition  of  Eusebius'  Historia  Ecdes.  ;  English  version 
in  ('ruse's  translation  of  the  same  work). 

CAVK:  Lives  of  the  Fathers,  II.  95-144   (ed.  II.  Cary,  (  )xf.  1840). 

L'n.i.KMoM  :  Hist.  Eccles.  VII.  pp.  39-75  (compare  also  his  account  of  the  Arians  in  vol.  VI.). 

STUOTII:  Leben  und  Sehriftcu  des  Eusebius  (in  his  <  lerman  translation  of  the  I  fist.  Ecclcs^. 

Cl.oss:  Leben  iind  Seltriften    Jcs  J-'.HSebins  (in  his  translation  of  the  same  work). 

DAN/:  De  F.nsebio  i\esarie,ni,  Historic  Eccles.  Scriptore,  cj  usque  fide  historic,!  recte  tcstimanda,  Cap.  II.: 
./-  rebus  ad  Ensebii  vila>n  perlinentibns  (pj>.  ^-75). 

STEIN"  :  Eusebius  nischofvon  dcsarea.  A^ir/i  seiiiem  Leben,  seinen  Schriften,  und  seiuein  di^matischen  Char- 
akter  dargestcllt  (\Viir/burg,  1859;  full  and  valuable). 

BRICHT,  in  the  introduction  to  his  edition  of  P.urton's  text  of  the  Hist.  F.rcles.  (excellent). 

EICHTFOOT  (Hishop  of  Durham):  Eitsebins  of  Cicsarea,  in  Smith  and  Wace's  Dietionary  of  Christian  Bio^- 
>•<!/>//}',  vol.  II.  pp.  308-348.  Eightfoot's  article  is  a  magnificent  monument  of  patristic  scholarship  and  contains 
the  best  and  most  exhaustive  treatment  of  the  life  and  writings  of  Eusebius  that  has  been  written. 

The  student  may  be  referred  finally  to  all  the  larger  histories  of  the  Church  (e.g.  Schaff,  vol.  III.  871  sqq.  and 
1034  sq.),  which  contain  more  or  less  extended  accounts  of  Eusebius. 

§  2.    Eusebius'  Birth  and  Training.      His  Life  in  Casarea  until  the  Outbreak  of  the 


Our  author  was  commonly  known  among  the  ancients  as  Eusebius  of  Crcsarea  or  Eusebius 
Pamphili.  The  former  designation  arose  from  the  fact  that  he  was  bishop  of  the  church  in 
Coesarea  for  many  years  ;  the  latter  from  the  fact  that  he  was  the  intimate  friend  and  devoted 
admirer  of  Pamphilus,  a  presbyter  of  Cresareu  and  a  martyr.  Some  such  specific  appellation  was 

il   2 


necessary  to  distinguish  him  from  others  of  the  same  name.  Smith  and  Wace's  Dictionary  of 
Christian  Jiio^rapliy  mentions  137  men  of  the  first  eight  centuries  who  bore  the  name  Kusebius, 
and  of  these  at  least  forty  were  contemporaries  of  our  author.  The  best  known  among  them 
were  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia  (called  by  Arius  the  brother  of  Kusebius  of  Cresarea),  Kusebius  of 
Kmesa,  and  Kusebius  of  Samosata. 

The  exact  date  of  our  author's  birth  is  unknown  to  us,  but  his  Ecclesiastical  History  contains 
notices  which  enable  us  to  fix  it  approximately.  In  //.  E.  V.  28  he  reports  that  Paul  of  Samosata 
attempted  to  revive  again  in  his  day  (*u$'  r//xu9)  the  heresy  of  Artemon.  But  Paul  of  Samosata  was 
deposed  from  the  episcopate  of  Antioch  in  272,  and  was  condemned  as  a  heretic  at  least  as  early 
as  268,  so  that  Kusebius  must  have  been  born  before  the  latter  date,  if  his  words  are  to  be  strictly 
interpreted.  Again,  according  to  //.  R.  III.  28,  Dionysius  was  bishop1  of  Alexandria  in  Kusebius' 
time  (xaff  rjiJius).  Hut  Dionysius  was  bishop  from  247  or  248  to  265,  and  therefore  if  Kusebius' 
words  are  to  be  interpreted  strictly  here  as  in  the  former  case,  he  must  have  been  born  before 
265.  On  the  other  hand,  inasmuch  as  his  death  occurred  about  340.  we  cannot  throw  his  birth 
much  earlier  than  260.  It  is  true  that  the  references  to  Paul  and  to  Dionysius  do  not  prove 
conclusively  that  Eusebius  was  alive  in  their  day,  for  his  words  may  have  been  used  in  a  loose 
sense.  But  in  //.  E.  VII.  26,  just  before  proceeding  to  give  an  account  of  Paul  of  Samosata,  he 
draws  the  line  between  his  own  and-the  preceding  generation,  declaring  that  he  is  now  about  to 
relate  the  events  of  his  own  age  (nr)i>  *u#'  ly/xS?).  This  still  further  confirms  the  other  indications, 
and  we  shall  consequently  be  safe  in  concluding  that  Kusebius  was  born  not  far  from  the  year 
260  A. i).  His  birthplace  cannot  be  determined  with  certainty.  The  fact  that  he  is  called 
"Eusebius  the  Palestinian"  by  Marcellus  (Eusel>.  lib.  adv.  Marcell.  I.  4),  Basil  (Lib.  ad.  Ampliil. 
de  Spir.  Sane  to,  c.  29),  and  others,  does  not  prove  that  he  was  a  Palestinian  by  birth  ;  for  the 
epithet  may  be  used  to  indicate  merely  his  place  of  residence  (he  was  bishop  of  Cresarea  in 
Palestine  for  many  years).  Moreover,  the  argument  urged  by  Stein  and  Lightfoot  in  support  of 
his  Palestinian  birth,  namely,  that  it  was  customary  to  elect  to  the  episcopate  of  any  church 
a  native  of  the  city  in  preference  to  a  native  of  some  other  place,  does  not  count  for  much.  All 
that  seems  to  have  been  demanded  was  that  a  man  should  have  been  already  a  member  of  the 
particular  church  over  which  he  was  to  be  made  bishop,  and  even  this  rule  was  not  universal  (see 
Bingham's  Antiquities,  II.  TO,  2  and  3).  The  fact  that  he  was  bishop  of  Cresarea  therefore  would 
at  most  warrant  us  in  concluding  only  that  he  had  made  his  residence  in  Cresarea  for  some  time 
previous  to  his  election  to  that  office.  Nevertheless,  although  neither  of  these  arguments  proves 
his  Palestinian  birth,  it  is  very  probable  that  he  was  a  native  of  that  country,  or  at  least  of  that 
section.  He  was  acquainted  with  Syriac  as  well  as  with  Greek,  which  circumstance  taken  in  con- 
nection with  his  ignorance  of  Latin  (see  below,  p.  47)  points  to  the  region  of  Syria  as  his  birth- 
place. Moreover,  we  learn  from  his  own  testimony  that  he  was  in  Cresarea  while  still  a  youth 
(  Vita  Constantini,  I.  19),  and  in  his  epistle  to  the  church  of  Cresarea  (see  below,  p.  16)  he  says 
that  he  was  taught  the  creed  of  the  Cresarean  church  in  his  childhood  (or  at  least  at  the  begin- 
ning of  his  Christian  life  :  h  rij  /cur^iyo-a),  and  that  he  accepted  it  at  baptism.  It  would  seem 
therefore  that  he  must  have  lived  while  still  a  child  either  in  Cresarea  itself,  or  in  the  neighbor- 
hood, where  its  creed  was  in  use.  Although  no  one  therefore  (except  Theodorus  Metochita  of 
the  fourteenth  century,  in  his  Cap.  Miscell.  17;  Migne,  Patr.  Lat.  CXLIV.  949)  directly  states 
that  Eusebius  was  a  Palestinian  by  birth,  we  have  every  reason  to  suppose  him  such. 

His  parents  are  entirely  unknown.  Nicephorus  Callistus  (H.  E.  VI.  37)  reports  that  his 
mother  was  a  sister  of  Pamphilus.  He  does  not  mention  his  authority  for  this  statement,  and 
it  is  extremely  unlikely,  in  the  face  of  the  silence  of  Eusebius  himself  and  of  all  other  writers, 
that  it  is  true.  It  is  far  more  probable  that  the  relationship  was  later  assumed  to  account  for  the 
close  intimacy  of  the  two  men.  Arius,  in  an  epistle  addressed  to  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia  (con- 
tained in  Theodoret's  Hist.  Eccles.  I.  5),  calls  Kusebius  of  Cresarea  the  latter's  brother.  It  is 
objected  to  this  that  Kusebius  of  Nicomedia  refers  to  Kusebius  of  Cresarea  on  one  occasion  as  his 

T1IK    LIKK   AND    WRITINGS    OF    K  US  FBI  US.  5 

"master"  (TOV  SCOTTO'TOD  p.w,  in  his  epistle  to  Paulinas  contained  in  Theodorct's  ///.>•/.  Efdcs. 
I.  6),  and  that  on  the  other  hand  Kusebius  of  Cajsarca  calls  Kusebius  of  Nicomedia,  "the  great 
Eusebius"  {Euscl>.  lib.  <ti/i>.  Marccll.  I.  4),  both  of  which  expressions  seem  inconsistent  with 
brotherhood.  Lightfoot  justly  remarks  that  neither  the  argument  itself  nor  the  objections  carry 
much  weight.  The  term  dScA^o's  may  well  have  been  used  to  indicate  merely  theological  or 
ecclesiastical  association,  while  on  the  other  hand,  brotherhood  would  not  exclude  the  form  of 
expression  employed  by  each  in  speaking  of  the  other.  Of  more  weight  is  the  fact  that  neither 
Kusebius  himself  nor  any  historian  of  that  period  refers  to  such  a  relationship,  and  also  the 
unlikelihood  that  two  members  of  one  family  should  bear  the  same  name. 

From  Kusebius'  works  we  gather  that  he  must  have  received  an  extensive  education  both  in 
secular  philosophy  and  in  liiblical  and  theological  science.  Although  his  immense  erudition  was 
doubtless  the  result  of  wide  and  varied  reading  continued  throughout  life,  it  is  highly  probable 
that  he  acquired  the  taste  for  such  reading  in  his  youth.  Who  his  early  instructors  were  we  do 
not  know,  and  therefore  cannot  estimate  the  degree  of  their  influence  over  him.  As  he  was  a 
man,  however,  who  cherished  deep  admiration  for  those  whom  he  regarded  as  great  and  good 
men,  and  as  he  possessed  an  unusually  acquisitive  mind  and  a  pliant  disposition,  we  should 
naturally  suppose  that  his  instructors  must  have  possessed  considerable  influence  over  him,  and 
that  his  methods  of  study  in  later  years  must  have  been  largely  molded  by  their  example  and 
precept.  We  see  this  exemplified  in  a  remarkable  degree  in  the  influence  exerted  over  him  by 
1'amphilus,  his  dearest  friend,  and  at  the  same  time  the  preceptor,  as  it  were,  of  his  early  man- 
hood. Certainly  this  great  bibliopholist  must  have  done  much  to  strengthen  Eusebius'  natural 
taste  for  omnivorous  reading,  and  the  opportunities  afforded  by  his  grand  library  for  the  cultiva- 
tion of  such  a  taste  were  not  lost.  To  the  influence  of  1'amphilus,  the  devoted  admirer  and 
enthusiastic  champion  of  Origen,  was  doubtless  due  also  in  large  measure  the  dee])  respect  which 
Kusebius  showed  for  that  illustrious  father,  a  respect  to  which  we  owe  one  of  the  most  delightful 
sections  of  his  Church  History,  his  long  account  of  Origen  in  the  sixth  book,  and  to  which  in  part 
antiquity  was  indebted  for  the  elaborate  Defense  of  Origcn,  composed  by  Pamphilus  and  him- 
self, but  unfortunately  no  longer  extant.  Kusebius  certainly  owed  much  to  the  companionship  of 
that  eager  student  and  noble  Christian  hero,  and  he  always  recognized  with  deep  gratitude  his  in- 
debtedness to  him.  (Compare  the  account  of  Pamphilus  given  below  in  15k.  VI  I.  chap.  32,  $  25  sq.) 
The  names  of  his  earlier  instructors,  who  were  eminently  successful,  at  least  in  fostering  his  thirst 
for  knowledge,  are  quite  unknown  to  us.  His  abiding  admiration  for  Plato,  whom  he  always 
placed  at  the  head  of  all  philosophers  (see  Stein,  p.  6),  would  lead  us  to  think  that  he  received 
at  least  a  part  of  his  secular  training  from  some  ardent  Platonist,  while  his  intense  interest  in 
apologetics,  which  lasted  throughout  his  life,  and  which  affected  nil  his  works,  seems  to  indicate 
the  peculiar  bent  of  his  early  Christian  education.  Trithemius  concluded  from  a  passage  in  his 
Jlisfrry  (VII.  32)  that  Eusebius  was  a  pupil  of  the  learned  1  )orotheus  of  Antioch,  and  Valesius, 
Lightfoot  and  others  are  apparently  inclined  to  accept  his  conclusion.  Hut,  as  Stroth  remarks 
(Eusclni  Kirchcngcschichte,  p.  xix),  all  that  Kusebius  says  is  that  he  had  heard  Dorotheus 
expound  the  Scriptures  in  the  church  (TOUTOV  /ACT/JIM?  ras  y/ju0as  cVi  rr;?  eVxAipius  Bujyov^vov 
KaTTfKouW/zei/),  that  is,  that  he  had  heard  him  preach.  To  conclude  from  this  statement  that 
he  was  a  pupil  of  Dorotheus  is  certainly  quite  unwarranted. 

Stroth's  suggestion  that  he  probably  enjoyed  the  instruction  of  Meletius  for  seven  years  during 
the  persecution  rests  upon  no  good  ground,  for  the  passage  which  he  relies  upon  to  sustain  his 
opinion  (//.  E.  VII.  32.  28)  says  only  that  Kusebius  "observed  Meletius  well"  (KuTuwjaa/ier) 
during  those  seven  years. 

In  Crcsarea  Kusebius  was  at  one  time  a  presbyter  of  the  church,  as  we  may  gather  from  his 
words  in  the  epistle  to  that  church  already  referred  to,  where,  in  speaking  of  the  creed,  he  says, 
"  As  we  believed  and  taught  in  the  presbytery  and  in  the  episcopate  itself."  Put  the  attempt  to 
fix  the  date  of  his  ordination  to  that  office  is  quite  vain.  It  is  commonlv  assumed  that  he 


became  presbyter  while  Agapius  was  bishop  of  Ciesarea,  and  this  is  not  unlikely,  though  we 
possess  no  proof  of  it  (upon  Agapius  see  below,  //.  R.  VII.  32,  note  39).  In  his  Vita  Con- 
stantini,  I.  uj,  Eusebius  reports  that  he  saw  Constantino  for  the  first  time  in  Czesarea  in  the 
train  of  the  Emperor  Diocletian.  In  his  Chron.  Eusebius  reports  that  Diocletian  made  an 
expedition  against  Egypt,  which  had  risen  in  rebellion  in  the  year  296  A.I >.,  and  Theophanes,  in 
his  Chron.,  says  that  Constantine  accompanied  him.  It  is  probable  therefore  that  it  was  at  this 
time  that  Eusebius  first  saw  Constantine  in  Crcsarea,  wlien  lie  was  either  on  his  way  to  Egypt,  or 
on  his  way  back  (see  Tillemont's  //is/,  des  Ei/if.,  IV.  p.  54). 

During  these  years  of  .piiet,  before  the  great   persecution  of  Diocletian,  which   broke  out   in 
303  A.I..,  Eusebius'  life  must  have  been  a  very  pleasant  one.      I'amphilus'  house  seems   to  have 
been  a  sort  of  rende/vous   for  Christian  scholars,  perhaps  a  regular  divinity  school  ;   for  we  learn 
from  Eusebius'  Martyrs  in  l\ilcstine  (Cureton's  edition,  pp.   .3  and    14)  that  he  and  a  number  of 
others,   including   the   martyr  Apphianus,  were  living  together  in  one   house  at  the  time  of  the 
persecution.,  and  that  the  latter  was  instructed  in  the  Scriptures  by  Pamphilus  and  acquired  from 
him  virtuous   habits   and   conduct.      The-  great  library  of    I'amphilus   would    make    his    house  a 
natural  center  for  theological  study,  and   the   immense  amount  of  work  which  was  done  by  him, 
or  under  his  direction,  in   the   reproduction   of  copies  of  the    Holy  Scriptures,  of  Origen's  works 
(see  Jerome's  de  rir.  i  /.  75  and  Si,  and  contra,  Ruf.  I.  9),  and  in  other  literary  employments  of 
the  same  kind,  makes  it  probable  that  he  had  gathered   about  him  a  large  circle   of  friends  and 
students  who  assisted   him   in  his  labors  and   profited   by  his  counsel  and   instruction.     Amidst 
these  associations   Eusebius  passed   his  early  manhood,  and   the  intellectual  stimulus  thus  given 
him  doubtless  had   much   to   do  with   his  future  career.     He  was  above  all  a  literary  man,  and 
remained  such  to  the  end  of  his  life.    The  pleasant  companionships  of  these  days,  and  the  mutual 
interest  and   sympathy   which   must    have   bound    those    fellow-students    and   fellow-disciples   of 
Pamphilus  very  close  together,  perhaps  had  much  to  do  with   that  broad-minded  spirit  of  sym- 
pathy and  tolerance  which  so  characterized   Eusebius   in   later  years.      He  was  always  as  far  as 
possible  from  the  character  of  a  recluse.     He  seems  ever  to  have  been  bound  by  very  strong  ties 
to  the  world  itself  and  to  his  fellow-men.      Had  his  earlier  days  been  filled  with  trials  and  hard- 
ships, with  the  bitterness  of  disappointed  hopes  and  unfulfilled  ambitions,  with  harsh  experiences 
of  others'  selfishness  and  treachery,  who  shall  say  that  the  whole  course  of  his  life  might  not  have 
been  changed,  and  his  writings  have  exhibited  an  entirely  different  spirit  from  that  which  is  now 
one   of   their  greatest    charms?    Certainly  he    had    during  these   early  years   in   Crcsarea    large 
opportunities  for  cultivating  that  natural  trait  of  admiration  for  other  men,  which  was  often  so 
strong  as  to  blind  him  even  to  their  faults,  and  that  natural  kindness  which  led  him  to  see  good 
wherever  it  existed  in  his  Christian  brethren.     At  the  same  time  these  associations  must  have"  had 
considerable   influence  in  fostering  the  apologetic  temper.     The  pursuits  of  the  little  circle  were 
apparently  exclusively  Christian,  and  in  that  day  when  Christianity  stood  always  on  its  defense, 
it  would  naturally  become  to  them  a  sacred  duty  to  contribute  to  that  defense  and  to  employ 
all  their  energies  in  the  task.      It  has  been  remarked  that  the  apologetic  temper  is  very  noticeable 
in  Eusebius'  writings.      It  is  more  than  that  ;  we  may  say  indeed  in  general  terms  that  everything 
he  wrote  was  an  apology  for  the   faith.     His  History  was  written  avowedly  with  an  apologetic 
purpose,  his   Chronicle  was  composed  with   the  same  end  in  view.     Even  when  pronouncing  a 
eulogy  upon  a  deceased  emperor  he  sei/.ed  every  possible  opportunity  to  draw  from  that  emperor's 
career,  and  from  the  circumstances  of  his   reign,  arguments  for  the  truth  and  grandeur  of  the 
Christian  religion.     His  natural  temper  of  mind  and  his  early  training  may  have  had  much  to  do 
with  this  habit  of  thought,  but  certainly  those  years  with  Pamphilus  and  his  friends  in  Cresarea 
must  have  emphasi/ed  and  developed  it. 

Another  characteristic  which  Pamphilus  and  the  circle  that  surrounded  him  doubtless  did 
something  to  develop  in  our  author  was  a  certain  superiority  to  the  trammels  of  mere  traditionalism, 
or  we  might  perhaps  better  say  that  they  in  some  measure  checked  the  opposite  tendency  of 

Till-:    LIKE   AND   WRITINGS    OF    KUSKBIUS.  7 

slavishness  to  the  traditional  which  seems  to  have  been  natural  to  him.     Pamphilus'  deep  rever- 
ence for  Origen  proclaims  him  at  once  superior  to  that  kind  of  narrow  conservatism  which  led 
many  men  as  learned  and  doubtless  as  conscientious  as  himself  to   pass  severe  and  unconditional 
condemnation  upon  Origen  and  all  his  teaching.     The  effect  of  championing  his  cause  must  have 
fostered  in  this  little  circle,  which  was  a  very  hotbed  of  Origenism,  a  contempt  for  the  narrow 
and  unfair  judgments  of  mere  traditionalists,  and  must  have  led  them  to  seek  in  some  degree  the 
truth  solely  for  its  own  sake,  and  to  become  in  a  measure  careless  of  its  relation  to  the  views  of 
any  school  or  church.     It  could  hardly  be  otherwise  than  that  the  free  and  fearless  spirit  of 
Origen  should  leave  its  impress  through  his  writings  upon  a  circle  of  followers  so  devoted  to  him 
as  were  these  Csesarean  students.     Upon  the  impressionable  Kusebius  these  influences  necessarily 
operated.     And  yet  he  brought  to  them  no  keen  speculative  powers,  no  deep  originality  such  as 
Origen  himself  possessed.     His  was  essentially  an  acquisitive,  not  a  productive  mind,  and   hence 
it  was  out  of  the  question  that  he  should  become  a  second  Origen.      It  was  quite  certain  that 
Origen's  influence  over  him  would  weaken  somewhat  his  confidence  in  the  traditional  as  such, — 
a  confidence  which  is  naturally  great  in  such  minds  as  his,  —  but  at  the  same  time  would  do 
little  to  lessen  the  real  power  of  the  past  over  him.     He  continued  to  get  his  truth   from  others, 
from  the  great  men  of  the  past  with  whom  he  had  lived  and  upon  whose  thought  he  had  feasted. 
All  that  he  believed  he  had  drawn  from  them;  he  produced  nothing  new  for  himself,  and  his 
creed  was  a  traditional  creed.     And  yet  he  had  at  the  same  time  imbibed  from  his  surroundings 
the  habit  of  questioning  and  even  criticising  the  past,  and,  in  spite  of  his  abiding  respect  for  it, 
had   learned  to  feel  that  the  voice  of  the  many  is  not  always  the  voice  of  truth,  and  that  the 
widely  and  anciently  accepted  is  sometimes  to  be  corrected  by  the  clearer  sight  of  a  single  man. 
Though  he  therefore  depended  for  all  he  believed  so  completely  upon  the  past,  his  associations 
had  helped  to  free  him  from  a  slavish  adherence  to  all  that  a  particular  school  had  accepted,  and 
had  made  him  in  some  small  measure  an  eclectic  in  his  relations  to  doctrines  and  opinions  of 
earlier  generations.     A  notable  instance  of  this  eclecticism  on  his  part  is  seen  in  his  treatment  of 
the  Apocalypse  of  John.     He  felt  the  force  of  an  almost  universal  tradition  in  favor  of  its  apos- 
tolic origin,  and  yet  in  the  face  of  that  he  could  listen  to  the  doubts  of  Dionysius,  and  could  be 
led  by  his  example,  in  a  case  where  his  own  dissatisfaction  with  the  book  acted  as  an  incentive, 
almost,  if  not  quite,  to  reject  it  and  to  ascribe  it  to  another  John.     Instances  of  a  similar  mode  of 
conduct  on  his  part  are  quite  numerous.     While  he  is  always  a  staunch  apologist  for  Christianity, 
he  seldom,  if  ever,  degenerates  into  a  mere  partisan  of  any  particular  school  or  sect. 

One  thing  in  fact  which  is  particularly  noticeable  in  Kusebius'  works  is  the  comparatively 
small  amount  of  time  and  space  which  he  devotes  to  heretics.  With  his  wide  and  varied  learn- 
ing and  his  extensive  acquaintance  with  the  past,  he  had  opportunities  for  successful  heresy 
hunting  such  as  few  possessed,  and  yet  he  never  was  a  heresy  hunter  in  any  sense.  This  is  sur- 
prising when  we  remember  what  a  fascination  this  employment  had  for  so  many  scholars  of  his 
own  age,  and  when  we  realize  that  his  historical  tastes  and  talents  would  seem  to  mark  him  out 
as  just  the  man  for  that  kind  of  work.  May  it  not  be  that  the  lofty  spirit  of  Origen,  animating 
that  Crcsarean  school,  had  something  to  do  with  the  happy  fact  that  he  became  an  apologist 
instead  of  a  mere  polemic,  that  he  chose  the  honorable  task  of  writing  a  history  of  the  Church 
instead  of  anticipating  Epiphanius'  Panarium  ? 

It  was  not  that  he  was  not  alive  to  the  evils-  of  heresy.  He  shared  with  nearly  all  good  church- 
men of  his  age  an  intense  aversion  for  those  who,  as  he  believed,  had  corrupted  the  true  Gospel  of 
Christ.  Like  them  he  ascribed  heresy  to  the  agency  of  the  evil  one,  and  was  no  more  able  than 
they  to  see  any  good  in  a  man  whom  he  looked  upon  as  a  real  heretic,  or  to  do  justice  in  any  degree 
to  the  error  which  he  taught.  His  condemnations  of  heretics  in  his  Church  History  are  most 
severe.  Language  is  hardly  strong  enough  to  express  his  aversion  for  them.  And  yet,  although 
he  is  thus  most  thoroughly  the  child  of  his  age,  the  difference  between  him  and  most  of  his 
contemporaries  is  very  apparent.  He  mentions  these  heretics  only  to  dismiss  them  with  dis- 


approval  or  condemnation.  Me  seldom,  if  ever,  discusses  and  refutes  their  views.  His  interests 
lie  evidently  in  other  directions ;  he  is  concerned  with  higher  things.  A  still  more  strongly 
marked  difference  between  himself  and  many  churchmen  of  his  age  lies  in  his  large  liberality 
towards  those  of  his  own  day  who  differed  with  him  in  minor  points  of  faith,  and  his  comparative 
indifference  to  the  divergence  of  views  between  the  various  parties  in  the  Church.  In  all  this  we 
believe  is  to  be  seen  not  simply  the  inherent  nature  of  the  man,  but  that  nature  as  trained  in  the 
school  of  Pamphilus,  the  disciple  of  Origen. 

§   3.      The  Persecution  of  Diocletian. 

In  this  delightful  circle  and  engaged  in  such  congenial  tasks,  the  time  must  have  passed  very 
happily  for  Kusebius,  until,  in  303,  the  terrible  persecution  of  Diocletian  broke  upon  the  Church 
almost  like  a  thunderbolt  out  of  a  clear  sky.  The  causes  of  the  sudden  change  of  policy  on 
I  Hocletian's  part,  and  the  terrible  havoc  wrought  in  the  Church,  it  is  not  my  intention  to  discuss 
here  (see  below,  Bk.  VIII.  chap.  2.  note  3  s^.).  We  are  concerned  with  the  persecution  only  in 
so  far  as  it  bears  upon  the  present  subject.  In  the  first  year  of  the  persecution  Procopius,  the 
first  martyr  of  Palestine,  was  put  to  death  at  Crcsarea  (Eusebius1  Martyrs  of  Pales  fine,  Cureton's 
ed.  p.  4),  and  from  that  time  on  that  city,  which  was  an  important  Christian  center,  was  the 
scene  of  a  tempest  which  raged  with  greater  or  less  violence,  and  with  occasional  cessations,  for 
seven  years.  Eusebius  himself  was  an  eyewitness  of  many  martyrdoms  there,  of  which  he  gives 
us  an  account  in  his  Martyrs  of  Palestine.  The  little  circle  which  surrounded  Pamphilus  did  not 
escape.  In  the  third  year  of  the  persecution  (Mart,  of  Pal.  p.  12  sq.)  a  youth  named  Apphianus, 
or  Epiphanius  (the  former  is  given  in  the  Creek  text,  the  latter  in  the  Syriac),  who  "resided  in 
the  same  house  with  us,  confirming  himself  in  godly  doctrine,  and  being  instructed  by  that  per- 
fect martyr,  Pamphilus  "  (as  Euscbius  says),  committed  an  act  of  fanatical  daring  which  caused 
his  arrest  and  martyrdom.  It  seems  that  without  the  knowledge  of  his  friends,  concealing  his 
design  even  from  those  who  dwelt  in  the  same  house  with  him,  he  laid  hold  of  the  hand  of  the 
governor,  Arbanus,  who  was  upon  the  point  of  sacrificing,  and  endeavored  to  dissuade  him  from 
offering  to  "lifeless  idols  and  wicked  devils."  His  arrest  was  of  course  the  natural  consequence, 
and  he  had  the  glory  of  witnessing  a  good  profession  and  suffering  a  triumphant  death.  Although 
Eusebius  speaks  with  such  admiration  of  his  conduct,  it  is  quite  significant  of  the  attitude  of  him- 
self, and  of  most  of  the  circle  of  which  he  was  one,  that  Apphianus  felt  obliged  to  conceal  his 
purpose  from  them.  He  doubtless  feared  that  they  would  not  permit  him  to  perform  the  rash 
act  which  he  meditated,  and  we  may  conclude  from  that,  that  the  circle  in  the  main  was  gov- 
erned by  the  precepts  of  good  common  sense,  and  avoided  that  fanaticism  which  so  frequently 
led  men,  as  in  the  present  case  it  led  Apphianus,  to  expose  themselves  needlessly,  and  even  to 
court  martyrdom.  It  is  plain  enough  from  what  we  know  of  Eusebius'  general  character  that  he 
himself  was  too  sensible  to  act  in  that  way.  It  is  true  that  he  speaks  with  admiration  of 
Apphianus'  conduct,  and  in  H.  E.  VIII.  5,  of  the  equally  rash  procedure  of  a  Nicomedian  Chris- 
tian ;  but  that  does  not  imply  that  he  considered  their  course  the  wisest  one,  and  that  he  would 
not  rather  recommend  the  employment  of  all  proper  and  honorable  precautions  for  the  preserva- 
tion of  life.  Indeed,  in  //.  E.  IV.  15,  he  speaks  with  evident  approval  of  the  prudent  course  pur- 
sued by  Polycarp  in  preserving  his  life  so  long  as  he  could  without  violating  his  Christian  profes- 
sion, and  with  manifest  disapproval  of  the  rash  act  of  the  Phrygian  Quintus,  who  presumptuously 
courted  martyrdom,  only  to  fail  when  the  test  itself  came.  Pamphilus  also  possessed  too  much 
sound  Christian  sense  to  advocate  any  such  fanaticism,  or  to  practice  it  himself,  as  is  plain  enough 
from  the  fact  that  he  was  not  arrested  until  the  fifth  year  of  the  persecution.  This  unhealthy 
temper  of  mind  in  the  midst  of  persecution  was  indeed  almost  universally  condemned  by  the 
wisest  men  of  the  Church,  and  yet  the  boldness  and  the  very  rashness  of  those  who  thus  voluntarily 
and  needlessly  threw  their  lives  away  excited  widespread  admiration  and  too  often  a  degree 


of  commendation  which  served  only  to  promote  a  wider  growtli  of  the  same  unhealthy  senti- 

In  the  fifth  year  of  the  persecution  Pamphilus  was  arrested  and  thrown  into  prison,  where   he- 
remained  for  two  years,  when  he  finally,  in  the  seventh  year  of  the  persecution,  suffered    martyr- 
dom with  eleven  others,  some  of  whom  were   his  disciples  and   members  of  his  own   household. 
(Pa!.  Mart.  Cureton's  ed.   p.   36  sq.  ;  H.  E.  App.  chap,  n.)       During  the   two  years  of   Pam- 
philus'  imprisonment  Eusebius  spent  a  great  deal  of  time  with  him,  and  the  two  together  com 
posed  five  books  of  an  Apology  for  Origen,to  which  Eusebius  afterward  added  a  sixth  (see  below, 
p.  36).      Danz  (p.  37)  assumes  that  Eusebius  was  imprisoned  with   Pamphilus,  which   is   not  an 
unnatural  supposition  when  we  consider  how  much  they  must  have  been  together  to  compose  the 
Apology  as  they  did.     There  is,  however,  no  other  evidence  that  he  was  thus  imprisoned,  and 
in  the  face  of  Eusebius'  own  silence  it  is  safer  perhaps  to  assume  (with  most  historians)  that   he 
simply  visited  Pamphilus  in  his  prison.     How  it  happened  that   Pamphilus  and  so  many  of  his 
followers  were  imprisoned  and  martyred,  while  Eusebius  escaped,  we  cannot  tell.      In  his  Afartyrs 
of  Palestine,  chap,  n,  he  states  that  Pamphilus  was  the  only  one  of  the  company  of  twelve  martyrs 
that  was  a  presbyter  of  the  Crcsarean  church  ;   and  from  the  fact  that   he   nowhere   mentions   the 
martyrdom  of  others  of  the  presbyters,  we  may  conclude  that  they  all  escaped.      It  is  not  sur- 
prising, therefore,    that   Eusebius    should    have   done   the  same.       Nevertheless,  it  is  somewhat 
difficult   to  understand   how   he  could  come  and  go   so   frequently  without   being   arrested   and 
condemned  to  a  like  fate  with  the  others.     It   is  possible  that  he  possessed   friends   among  the 
authorities  whose  influence  procured  his  safety.     This  supposition  finds  some  support  in  the  fact 
that  he  had  made  the  acquaintance  of  Constantine  (the  ('.reek  in  Vita  Const.  I.  19   has  eyiw/xer, 
which  implies,  as  Danz  remarks,  that  he  not  only  saw,  but  that  he  became  acquainted  with  Con- 
stantine) some  years  before  in  Ccesarea.      He  could  hardly  have  made  his  acquaintance  unless 
he  had  some  friend  among  the  high  officials  of  the  city.     Influential   family  connections   may 
account  in  part  also  for  the  position  of  prominence  which  he  later  acquired  at  the  imperial  court 
of  Constantine.     If  he  had  friends  in  authority  in  Cojsarea  during  the  persecution   his   exemption 
from  arrest  is  satisfactorily  accounted  for.      It  has  been  supposed  by  some  that  Eusebius   denied 
the  faith  during  the  terrible  persecution,  or  that  he  committed  some  other  questionable  and  com- 
promising act  of  concession,  and  thus  escaped  martyrdom.     In  support  of  this  is  urged   the   fact 
that  in  335,  at  the  council  of  Tyre,  Potamo,  bishop  of  Heraclea,  in  Egypt,  addressed  Eusebius   in 
the  following  words:   "Dost  thou  sit  as  judge,  O  Eusebius;    and  is  Athanasius,  innocent  as   he 
is,  judged  by  thee?     Who  can  bear  such  things?     Pray  tell  me,  wast  thou  not  with  me  in  prison 
during  the  persecution?     And  I  lost  an  eye  in  behalf  of  the   truth,  but  thou  appearest  to   have- 
received  no  bodily  injury,  neither  hast  thou  suffered  martyrdom,  but  thou  hast  remained  alive 
with  no  mutilation.      How  wast  thou  released  from  prison  unless  thou  didst  promise  those   that 
put  upon  us  the  pressure  of  persecution  to  do  that  which   is  unlawful,  or  didst  actually  do  it  ? 
Eusebius,  it  seems,  did  not  deny  the  charge,  but  simply  rose  in  anger  and  dismissed  the  council 
with  the  words,  "  If  ye  come  hither  and  make  such  accusations  against  us,  then  do  your  accusers 
speak  the  truth.     Eor  if  ye  tyranni/e  here,  much  more  do  ye  in  your  own  country"  (Epiphan. 
liter.  LXVIII.  8).     It  must  be  noticed,  however,  that  Potamo  does  not  directly  charge   Eusebius 
with  dishonorable  conduct,  he  simply  conjectures  that  he  must  have  acted  dishonorably  in  order 
to  escape  punishment  ;  as  if  every  one  who  was  imprisoned  with   Potamo  must  have  suffered  as 
he  did  !     As  Stroth  suggests,  it  is  quite  possible  that  his  peculiarly  excitable  and  violent  tempera- 
ment was  one  of  the  causes  of  his  own  loss.     He  evidently  in  any  case   had  no  knowledge   of 
unworthy  conduct  on  Eusebius'  part,  nor  had  any  one  else  so  far  as  we  can  judge.      Eor  in  that 
age  of  bitter  controversy,  when  men's  characters  were  drawn  by  their  opponents   in  the  blackest 
lines,  Eusebius  must  have  suffered  at  the  hands  of  the   Athanasian  party  if  it  had  been  known 
that  he  had  acted  a  cowardly  part  in  the  persecution.     Athanasius  himself  refers  to  this  incident 
(Contra  Arian.  VIII.  i),  but  he  only  says  that  Eusebius  was  "  accused  of  sacrificing,"  he  does 


not  venture  to  affirm  that  he  did  sacrifice  ;  and  thus  it  is  evident  that  he  knew  nothing  of  such 
an  act.  Moreover,  he  never  calls  Kuscbius  "the  sacrifieer,"  as  he  does  Asterius,  and  as  he 
would  have  been  sure  to  do  had  he  possessed  evidence  which  warranted  him  in  making  the 
accusation  (cf.  Lightfoot,  p.  311).  Still  further,  Kusebius'  subsequent  election  to  the  epis- 
copate of  Ca:sarea,  where  his  character  and  his  conduct  during  the  persecution  must  have 
been  well  known,  and  his  appointment  in  later  life  to  the  important  see  of  Antioch,  forbid  the 
supposition  that  he  had  ever  acted  a  cowardly  part  in  time  of  persecution.  And  finally,  it  is 
psychologically  impossible  that  Kusebius  could  have  written  works  so  full  of  comfort  for,  and 
sympathy  with,  the  suffering  confessors,  and  could  have  spoken  so  openly  and  in  such  strong 
terms  of' condemnation  of  the  numerous  defections  that  occurred  during  the  persecution,  if  he 
was  conscious  of  his  own  guilt.  It  is  quite  possible,  as  remarked  above,  that  influential  friends 
protected  him  without  any  act  of  compromise  on  his  part;  or,  supposing  him  to  have  been 
imprisoned  with  Potamo,  it  may  be,  as  Lightfoot  suggests,  that  the  close  of  the  persecution 
brought  him  his  release  as  it  did  so  many  others.  For  it  would  seem  natural  to  refer  that 
imprisonment  to  the  latter  part  of  the  persecution,  when  in  all  probability  he  visited  Egypt,  which 
was  the  home  of  I'otamo.  We  must  in  any  case  vindicate  Kusebius  from  the  unfounded  charge 
of  cowardice  and  apostasy  ;  and  we  ask,  with  Cave,  "  If  every  accusation  against  any  man  at  any 
time  were  to  be  believed,  who  would  be  guiltless?  " 

From  his  Histon'  and  his  ALir/yrs  in  Palestine  we  learn  that  Kusebius  was  for  much  of  the 
time  in  the  very  thick  of  the  fight,  and  was  an  eyewitness  of  numerous  martyrdoms  not  only  in 
Palestine,  but  also  in  Tyre  and  in  Kgypt. 

The  date  of  his  visits  to  the  latter  places  (//.  E.  VIII.  7,  9)  cannot  be  determined  with 
exactness.  They  are  described  in  connection  with  what  seem  to  be  the  earlier  events  of  the 
persecution,  and'  yet  it  is  by  no  means  certain  that  chronological  order  has  been  observed  in  the 
narratives.  The  mutilation  of  prisoners  —  such  as  Potamo  suffered  —  seems  to  have  become 
common  only  in  the  year  308  and  thereafter  (see  Mason's  Persecution  of Diocletian,  p.  281),  and 
hence  if  Kusebius  was  imprisoned  with  Potamo  during  his  visit  to  Kgypt,  as  seems  most  probable, 
there  would  be  some  reason  for  assigning  that  visit  to  the  later  years  of  the  persecution.  In  con- 
firmation of  this  might  be  urged  the  improbability  that  he  would  leave  Ceesurea  while  Pamphilus 
was  still  alive,  either  before  or  after  the  hitter's  imprisonment,  and  still  further  his  own  state- 
ment in  //.  E.  VII.  32,  that  he  had  observed  Melelius  escaping  the  fury  of  the  persecution  for 
seven  years  in  Palestine.  It  is  therefore  likely  that  Kusebius  did  not  make  his  journey  to  Kgypt, 
which  must  have  occupied  some  time,  until  toward  the  very  end  of  the  persecution,  when  it  raged 
there  with  exceeding  fierceness  during  the  brief  outburst  of  the  infamous  Maximin. 

§  4.    Eiiscbius*  Accession  to  the  liishopric  of  Ciesarea. 

Not  long  after  the  close  of  the  persecution,  Kusebius  became  bishop  of  Caisarea  in  Pales- 
tine, his  own  home,  and  held  the  position  until  his  death.  The  exact  date  of  his  accession  cannot 
be  ascertained,  indeed  we  cannot  say  that  it  did  not  take  place  even  before  the  close  of  the  perse- 
cution, but  that  is  hardly  probable  ;  in  fact,  we  know  of  no  historian  who  places  it  earlier  than 
313.  His  immediate  predecessor  in  the  episcopate  was  Agapius,  whom  he  mentions  in  terms  of 
praise  in  //.  E.  VII.  32.  Some  writers  have  interpolated  a  bishop  Agricolaus  between  Agapius 
and  Eusebius  (see  e.g.  Tillemont,  Hist.  Ecclcs.  VII.  42),  on  the  ground  that  his  name  appears  in 
one  of  the  lists  of  those  present  at  the  Council  of  Ancyra  (c.  314),  as  bishop  of  Ccesarea  m 
Palestine  (see  Labbei  ct  Cossartii  Cone.  I.  1475).  r>ut>  as  Hefele  shows  (ConciKcngesch.  I.  220), 
this  list  is  of  late  date  and  not  to  be  relied  upon.  On  the  other  hand,  as  Lightfoot  points  out,  in 
the  Libellus  Synodicus  (Cone.  I.  1480),  where  Agricolaus  is  said  to  have  been  present  at  the 
Council  of  Ancyra,  he  is  called  bishop  of  Cresarea  in  Cappadocia  ;  and  this  statement  is  confirmed 
by  a  Syriac  list  given  in  Cowper's  Miscellanies,  p.  41.  Though  perhaps  no  great  reliance  is  to  be 


jjlaced  ujxjn  the  correctness  of  any  of  these  lists,  the  last  two  may  at  any  rate  be  set  over 
against  the  first,  and  we  may  conclude  that  there  exists  no  ground  for  assuming  that  Agapius, 
who  is  the  last  Cassarean  bishop  mentioned  by  Eusebius,  was  not  the  hitter's  immediate  prede- 
cessor. At  what  time  Agapius  died  we  do  not  know.  That  he  suffered  martyrdom  is  hardly 
likely,  in  view  of  Eusebius'  silence  on  the  subject.  It  would  seem  more  likely  that  he  outlived 
the  persecution.  However  that  may  be,  Eusebius  was  already  bishop  at  the  time  of  the  dedica- 
tion of  a  new  and  elegant  church  at  Tyre  under  the  direction  of  his  friend  Paulinas,  bishop  of 
that  city.  Upon  this  occasion  he  delivered  an  address  of  considerable  length,  which  he  has 
inserted  in  his  Ecclesiastical  History,  l>k.  X.  chap.  4.  Me  does  not  name  himself  as  its  author, 
but  the  way  in  which  he  introduces  it,  and  the  very  fact  that  he  records  the  whole  speech  without 
giving  the  name  of  the  man  who  delivered  it,  make  its  origin  perfectly  plain.  Moreover,  the  last 
sentence  of  the  preceding  chapter  makes  it  evident  that  the  speaker  was  a  bishop  :  "  Every  one 
of  the  rulers  (ap\6vTav)  present  delivered  panegyric  discourses."  The  date  of  the  dedication  of 
this  church  is  'i  vnatter  of  dispute,  though  it  is  commonly  put  in  the  year  315.  It  is  plain  from 
Eusebius'  speech  that  it  was  uttered  before  Licinius  had  begun  to  persecute  the  Christians,  and 
also,  as  Gorres  remarks,  at  a  time  when  Constantine  and  Licinius  were  at  least  outwardly  at  peace 
with  each  other.  In  the  year  314  the  two  emperors  went  to  war,  and  consequently,  if  the  perse- 
cution of  Licinius  began  soon  after  that  event,  as  it  is  commonly  supposed  to  have  done,  the 
address  must  have  been  delivered  before  hostilities  opened;  that  is,  at  least  as  early  as  314, 
and  this  is  the  year  in  which  Gorres  places  it  (Kritisclie  Untersiichiingen  ucber  die  lidnianische 
Christenverfolgiing,  p.  8).  Hut  if  Gorres'  date  (319  A.D.)  for  the  commencement  of  the  perse- 
cution be  accepted  (and  though  he  can  hardly  be  said  to  have  proved  it,  he  has  urged  some 
strong  grounds  in  support  of  it),  then  the  address  may  have  been  delivered  at  almost  any  time 
between  315  and  319,  for,  as  Gorres  himself  shows,  Licinius  and  Constantine  were  outwardly  at 
peace  during  the  greater  part  of  that  time  (il>.  p.  14  sq.).  There  is  nothing  in  the  speech  itself 
which  prevents  this  later  date,  nor  is  it  intrinsically  improbable  that  the  great  basilica  reached 
completion  only  in  315  or  later.  In  fact,  it  must  be  admitted  that  Eusebius  may  have  become 
bishop  at  any  time  between  about  31  i  and  318. 

The  persecution  of  Licinius,  which  continued  until  his  defeat  by  Constantine,  in  323,  was  but 
local,  and  seems  never  to  have  been  very  severe.  Indeed,  it  did  not  bear  the  character  of  a 
bloody  persecution,  though  a  few  bishops  appear  to  have  met  their  death  on  one  ground  or 
another.  Palestine  and  Egypt  seem  not  to  have  suffered  to  any  great  extent  (see  Gorres,/^.  p.  32  sq.). 

§  5.    The  Outbreak  of  the  Arian  Controversy.     The  Attitude  of  Euscbius. 

About  the  year  318,  while  Alexander  was  bishop  of  Alexandria,  the  Arian  controversy  broke 
out  in  that  city,  and  the  whole  Eastern  Church  was  soon  involved  in  the  strife.  We  cannot  enter 
here  into  a  discussion  of  Arms'  views;  but  in,  order  to  understand  the  rapidity  with  which  the 
Arian  party  grew,  and  the  strong  hold  which  it  possessed  from  the  very  start  in  Syria  and  Asia 
Minor,  we  must  remember  that  Arius  was  not  himself  the  author  of  that  system  which  we  know  as 
Arianism,  but  that  he  learned  the  essentials  of  it  from  his  instructor  Lucian.  The  latter  was  one 
of  the  most  learned  men  of  his  age  in  the  Oriental  Church,  and  founded  an  exegetico-theological 
school  in  Antioch,  which  for  a  number  of  years  stood  outside  of  the  communion  of  the  orthodox 
Church  in  that  city,  but  shortly  before  the  martyrdom  of  Lucian  himself  (which  took  place  in  311 
or  312)  made  its  peace  with  the  Church,  and  was  recogni/ed  by  it.  He  was  held  in  the  highest 
reverence  by  his  disciples,  and  exerted  a  great  influence  over  them  even  after  his  death.  Among 
them  were  such  men  as  Arius,  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia,  Asterius,  and  others  who  were  afterward 
known  as  staunch  Arianists.  According  to  Harnack  the  chief  points  in  the  system  of  Lucian  and 
his  disciples  were  the  creation  of  the  Son,  the  denial  of  his  co-eternity  with  the  Father,  and  his 
immutability  acquired  by  persistent  progress  and  steadfastness.  His  doctrine,  which  differed 

t   lint  it  w  is  not  a  man  but  a  created  heavenly 

' "•"  <"  '••""  •' *Trui  r  i-iii^uy :,  ::«;:"rVv-ombin;a,o,,  of  sj  ^  «f  ,,u, 

ill  the  essential   elements  of 


sr  :  r  r  : 

'  '  '  '         " 

to     rianUm   sec  Hamack' 

of  whom 


Nicomedia  (  fheodoret,  //.  ^.  1.  5  ).u  i         n  Cresarea  and  Thcodotus, 


In  t 

Tom.  V.  (Labbei  ct  Cossartn  Cone   VII  In  t  ^  ^ 

strates  with  Alexander  for  having  nnsrepresen  e  d  the  ^^  ^  J   T         com  lains  of 

of  Constantinople,  Alexander  of  Alexandria  (  1  1  eo  IOK      U^  1 



(Do^i/i.  Theol.  tic  Trin.  I.  c.  rr  sq.),  Scaliger  (///  Elencho  Trilueresii,  c.  27,  and  De  emendatione 
tcmpontm,  Bk.  VI.  c.  i),  Moshcini  {Ecclesiastical  History,  Murdock's  translation,  I.  p.  287  sq.), 
Montfaucon  (Pne/i/n.  in  Comment,  ad  Psalm,  c.  VI.),  and  Tillemont  ( //.  E.  VII.  ]>.  67  sq. 

2(\  eel.). 

On  the  other  hand,  as  may  be  seen  from  the  testimonies  in  Eusebius'  favor,  quoted  below  on 
p.  57  sq.,  many  of  the  Fathers,  who  were  themselves  orthodox,  looked  upon  Eusebius  as  likewise 
sound  on  the  subject  of  the  Trinity.  He  has  been  defended  in  modern  times  against  the  charge 
of  .  \rianism  by  a  great  many  prominent  scholars;  among  others  by  Valesius  in  his  Life  oj  l'jt\e- 
l>ins,  by  Hull  (Dcf.  Fid.  Nic.  II.  9.  20,  III.  9.  3,  n),  Cave  (Lives  of  /lie  Fathers,  II.  p.  135  sq.), 
Fabricius  (Bil>L  Gncc.  VI.  p.  32  sq.),  Dupin  (Bihl.  Eccles.  II.  p.  7  s<i.),an(l  most  fully  and 
carefully  by  Lee  in  his  prolegomena  to  his  edition  of  Eusebius'  Tlicopliania,  p.  xxiv.  sq.  Light- 
toot  also  defends  him  against  the  charge  of  heresy,  as  do  a  great  many  other  writers  whom  it  is 
not  necessary  to  mention  here.  Confronted  with  such  diversity  of  opinion,  both  ancient  and 
modern,  what  are  we  to  conclude?  It  is  useless  to  endeavor,  as  Lee  does,  to  clear  Eusebius  of 
all  sympathy  with  and  leaning  toward  Arianism.  It  is  impossible  to  explain  such  widespread  and 
continued  condemnation  of  him  by  acknowledging  only  that  there  are  many  expressions  in  his 
works  which  are  in  themselves  perfectly  orthodox  but  capable  of  being  wrested  in  such  a  way  as 
to  produce  a  suspicion  of  possible  Arianistic  tendencies,  for  there  arc  such  expressions  in  the 
works  of  multitudes  of  ancient  writers  whose  orthodoxy  has  never  been  questioned.  Nor  can  the 
widespread  belief  that  he  was  an  Arian  be  explained  by  admitting  that  he  was  for  a  time  the  per- 
sonal friend  of  Arius,  but  denying  that  he  accepted,  or  in  any  way  sympathized  with  his  views  (cf. 
Newman's  Arians,  p.  262).  There  are  in  fact  certain  fragments  of  epistles  extant,  which  are,  to 
say  the  least,  decidedly  Arianistic  in  their  modes  of  expression,  and  these  must  be  reckoned  with 
in  forming  an  opinion  of  Eusebius'  views ;  for  there  is  no  reason  to  deny,  as  Lee  does,  that  they 
are  from  Eusebius'  own  hand.  On  the  other  hand,  to  maintain,  with  some  of  the  Fathers  and 
many  of  the  moderns,  that  Eusebius  was  and  continued  through  life  a  genuine  Arian,  will  not  do 
in  the  face  of  the  facts  that  contemporary  and  later  Fathers  were  divided  as  to  his  orthodoxy, 
that  he  was  honored  highly  by  the  Church  of  subsequent  centuries,  except  at  certain  periods,  and 
was  even  canonized  (see  Lightfoot's  article,  p.  348),  that  he  solemnly  signed  the  Nicene  Creed, 
which  contained  an  express  condemnation  of  the  distinctive  doctrines  of  Arius,  and  finally  that  at 
least  in  his  later  works  he  is  thoroughly  orthodox  in  his  expressions,  and  is  explicit  in  his  rejection 
of  the  two  main  theses  of  the  Arians,  —  that  there  was  a  time  when  the  Son  of  God  was  not,  and 
that  he  was  produced  out  of  nothing.  It  is  impossible  to  enter  here  into  a  detailed  discussion  of 
such  passages  in  Eusebius'  works  as  bear  upon  the  subject  under  dispute.  Lee  has  considered 
many  of  them  at  great  length,  and  the  reader  may  be  referred  to  him  for  further  information. 

A  careful  examination  of  them  will,  I  believe,  serve  to  convince  the  candid  student  that  there 
is  a  distinction  to  be  drawn  between  those  works  written  before  the  rise  of  Arius,  those  written 
between  that  time  and  the  Council  of  Nicnea,  and  those  written  after  the  latter.  It  has  been  very 
common  to  draw  a  distinction  between  those  works  written  before  and  those  written  after  the 
Council,  but  no  one,  so  far  as  I  know,  has  distinguished  those  productions  of  Eusebius'  pen  which 
appeared  between  318  and  325,  and  which  were  caused  by  the  controversy  itself,  from  all  his 
other  writings.  And  yet  such  a  distinction  seems  to  furnish  the  key  to  the  problem.  Eusebius' 
opponents  have  drawn  their  strongest  arguments  from  the  epistles  which  Eusebius  wrote  to 
Alexander  and  to  Euphration ;  his  defenders  have  drawn  their  arguments  chiefly  from  the 
works  which  he  produced  subsequent  to  the  year  325  ;  while  the  exact  bearing  of  the  expressions 
used  in  his  works  produced  before  the  controversy  broke  out  has  always  been  a  matter  of  sharp 
dispute.  Lee  has  abundantly  shown  his  Contra  Marcel.,  his  De  Eccl.  TheoL,  his  Thcophania 
(which  was  written  after  the  Council  of  Nicrea,  and  not,  as  Lee  supposes,  before  it),  and  other 
later  works,  to  be  thoroughly  orthodox  and  to  contain  nothing  which  a  trinitarian  might  not  have 
written.  In  his  Hist.  Eccl.,  Pnepanitio  Eran^.,  Demonstratio  Evan^.,  and  other  earlier  works, 


although  we  find  some  expressions  employed   which   it   would  not  have  been  possible   for  an 
orthodox  trinitarian  to  use  after  the  Council  of  Nicwa,  at  least  without  careful  limitation  to  guard 
against  misapprehension,  there  is  nothing  even  in  these  works  which  requires  us  to  believe  that 
he  accepted  the  doctrines  of  Arius'  predecessor,  Lucian  of  Antioch  ;  that  is,  there  is  nothing  dis- 
tinctly and  positively  Arianistic  about  them,  although  there  are  occasional  expressions  which  might 
lead  the  reader  to  expect  that  the  writer  would  become  an  Arian  if  he  ever  learned  of  Arius' 
doctrines.     liut  if  there  is  seen  to  be  a  lack  of  emphasis  upon  the  divinity  of  the  Son,  or  rather  a 
lack  of  clearness  in  the  conception  of  the  nature  of  that  divinity,  it  must  be   remembered  that 
there  was  at  this  time  no  especial  reason  for  emphasizing  and   defining  it,  but  there  was  on  the 
contrary  very  good  reason    for    laying  particular  stress  upon  the  subordination  of  the  Son  over 
against  Sabellianism,  which  was  so  widely  prevalent  during  the  third  century,  and  which  was  exert- 
ing an  influence  even  over  many  orthodox  theologians  who  did  not  consciously  accept  Sabellian- 
istic  tenets.     That  Eusebius  was  a  decided  subordinationist  must  be  plain  to  every  one  that  reads 
his  works  with  care,  especially  his  earlier  ones.     It  would  be  surprising  if  he  had  not  been,  for' he 
was  born  at  a  time  when  Sabellianism  (monarchinnism)  was  felt  to  be  the  greatest  danger  to 
which  orthodox  christology  was  exposed,  and  he  was  trained  under  the  influence  of  the  followers 
of  Origen,  who  had  made  it  one  of  his  chief  aims  to  emphasize  the  subordination  of  the  Son  over 
against  that  very  monarchianism.1     The  same  subordinationism  may  be  clearly  seen  in  the  writings 
of  I  )ionysius  of  Alexandria  and  of  Gregory  Thaumaturgus,  two  of  Origen's  greatest  disciples.     It 
must  not  be  forgotten  that  at  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  century  the  problem  of  how  to  preserve 
the  Godhood  of  Christ  and  at  the  same  time  his  subordination  to  the  leather  (in  opposition  to  the 
monarchianists)  had  not  been  solved.     Eusebius  in  his  earlier  writings  shows  that  he  holds  both 
(he  cannot  be  convicted  of  denying  Christ's  divinity),  but  that  he  is  as  far  from  a  solution  of  the 
problem,  and  is  just  as  uncertain  in  regard  to  the  exact  relation  of  Father  and  Son,  as  Tertullian 
Hippolytus,  Origen,  Dionysius,  and  Gregory  Thaumaturgus  were;    is  just  as  inconsistent  in  his 
modes  of  expression  as  they,  and  yet  no  more  so  (see  I  larnack's  DoKmen^cschichtc,  \.  pp.  628  sq. 
and  634  sq.,  for  an  exposition  of  the  opinions  of  these  other  Fathers  on  the  subject).     Eusebius, 
with  the  same  immature  and  undeveloped  views  which  were  held  all  through  the  third  century' 
wrote  those  earlier  works  which  have  given  rise  to  so  much  dispute   between  those  who  accuse 
him  of  Arianism  and  those  who  defend  him  against  the  charge.     When  he  wrote  them  he  was 
neither  Arian  nor  Athanasian,  and  for  that   reason   passages  may  be  found  in  them  which  'if 
written  after  the  Council  of  Nicaea  might  prove  him  an  Arian,  and  other  passages  which  might  as 
truly  prove  him  an  Athanasian,  just  as  in  the  writings  of  Origen  were  found  by  both  parties 
passages  to  support   their  views,  and   in   Gregory  Thaumaturgus   passages   apparently  teaching 
Arianism,  and  others  teaching  its  opposite,  Sabellianism  (see  Harnack,  il>.  p.  646). 

Let  us  suppose  now  that  Eusebius,  holding  fast  to  the  divinity  of  Christ,  and  yet  convinced 
just  as  firmly  of  his  subordination  to  the  Father,  becomes  acquainted  through  Arius,  or  other  like- 
minded  disciples  of  Lucian  of  Antioch,  with  a  doctrine  which  seems  to  preserve  the  Godhood, 
while  at  the  same  time  emphasizing  strongly  the  subordination  of  the  Son,  and  which  formulates 
the  relation  of  Father  and  Son  in  a  clear  and  rational  manner.  That  he  should  accept  such  a 
doctrine  eagerly  is  just  what  we  should  expect,  and  just  what  we  find  him  doing.  In  his  epistles 
to  Alexander  and  Euphration,  he  shows  himself  an  Arian,  and  Arius  and  his  followers  were  quite 

Fatherthe  same  one    the   Son,  the 

the  Spirit,  as  life-giver,  etc.).  The  clause  of  the  Ca,-sarean  creed 
referred  to  runs  as  follows:  "That  the  Father  is  truly  Father, 
the  Son  truly  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  truly  Holy  Spirit"  (na-repa 
r  Trare'pn,  KOI  vibv  dArjfliu?  vibi>,  KOI  irvtvua  ayiov  dAjjAus  aytoc). 

It   is   significant  that  in  the   revised  creed   adopted  by  the  Council 
these  words  are    omitted,  evidently  because  the  occasion    for  them 
no  longer  existed,  since  not  Sabellianism  but  Arianism  was  the  her- 
esy combated:    and  because,  more  than  that,  the  use  of  them  would 
form  of   the    Father,    as    creator   and    law- |  but  weaken  the  emphasis  which  th«  Council  wished  to  put  upon  the 
giver;     ,n  the  form  of   the    Son.    as    redeem,,-:    and  in   the  form  of     essential  divinity  of  all  three  persons. 


right  in  claiming  him  as  a  supporter.     There  is  that  in  the  epistles  which  is  to  be  found  nowhere 
in  his  previous  writings,  and  which  distinctly  separates  him  from  the  orthodox  party.      How  then 
are  we  to  explain  the  fact  that  a  few  years  later  he  signed  the  Nicene  creed  and  anathematized 
the  doctrines  of  Arins?     Before  we  can  understand  his  conduct,  it  is  necessary  to  examine  care- 
fully the  two  epistles  in   question.     Such   an   examination  will    show  us   that   what    Kusebius   is 
defending  in  them  is  not  genuine  Arianism.      He  evidently  thinks  that  it  is,  evidently  supposes 
that  he  and  Arius  are  in  complete  agreement  upon  the  subjects  under  discussion  ;  but  he  is  mis- 
taken.    The  extant  fragments  of  the  two  epistles  are  given  below  on  p.  70.       It  will  be  seen  that 
Kusebius  in  them  defends  the  Arian  doctrine  that  there  was  a  time  when  the  Son  of  God  was  not. 
It  will  be  seen  also  that  he  finds  fault  with  Alexander  for  representing  the  Arians  as  teaching  that 
the  "Son  of  God  was  made  out  of  nothing,  like  all  creatures,"  and  contends  that  Arius  teaches 
that  the  Son  of  God  was  begotten,  and  that  he  was  not  produced  like  all  creatures.     We  know 
that  the  Arians  very  commonly  applied  the  word  "  begotten  "  to  Christ,  using  it  in  such  cases  as 
synonymous  with  "  created,"  and  thus  not  implying,  as  the  Athanasians  did  when  they  used  the 
word,  that  he  was  of  one  substance  with  the  Father  (compare,  for  instance,  the  explanation  of  the 
meaning  of  the  term  given  by  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia  in  his  epistle  to  Paulinus  ;  Theod.  //.  E. 
I.  6).     It  is  evident  that  the  use  of  this  word  had  deceived  our  Eusebius,  and  that  he  was  led  by 
it  to  think  that  they  taught  that  the  Son  was  of  the  Father  in  a  peculiar  sense,  and  did  in  reality 
partake  in  some  way  of  essential  Godhood.     And  indeed  it  is  not  at  all  surprising  that  the  words 
of  Arius,  in  his  epistle  to  Alexander  of  Alexandria   (see  Athan.  Ep.  de  cone.  Ariin.  et  Selene., 
chap.  II.  §   3 ;    Oxford   edition  of  Athanasius'    Tracts  against  Arianism,    p.   97),  quoted    by 
Eusebius  in  his  epistle  to  the  same  Alexander,  should  give  Eusebius  that  impression.     The  words 
are  as  follows  :  "  The  God  of  the  law,  and  of  the  prophets,  and  of  the  New  Testament  before 
eternal  ages  begat  an  only-begotten  Son,  through  whom  also  He  made  the  ages  and  the  universe. 
And  He  begat  him  not  in  appearance,  but  in  truth,  and  subjected  him  to  his  own  will,  unchange- 
able and  immutable,  a  perfect  creature  of  God,  but  not  as  one  of  the  creatures."     Arius'  use  here 
of  the  word  "  begat,"  and  his  qualification  of  the  word  "creature"  by  the  adjective  "perfect,"  and 
by  the  statement  that  he  was  "  not  as  one  of  the  creatures  "  naturally  tended  to  make  Eusebius 
think  that  Arius  acknowledged  a  real  divinity  of  the  Son,  and  that  appeared  to  him  to  be  all  that 
was  necessary.     Meanwhile  Alexander  in  his   epistle   to  Alexander  of  Constantinople   (Theod. 
//.  E.  I.  4)  had,  as  Eusebius  says,  misstated  Arius'  opinion,  or  at  least  had  attributed  to  him  the 
belief  that  Christ  was  "made   like   all   other  men   that   have    ever   been   born,"  whereas   Arius 
expressly  disclaims  such  a  belief.     Alexander  undoubtedly  thought  that  that  was  the  legitimate 
result  to  which  the  other  views  of  Arius  must  lead  ;  but  Eusebius  did  not  think  so,  and  felt  him- 
self called  upon  to  remonstrate  with  Alexander  for  what  seemed  to  him  the  latter 's  unfairness  in 
the  matter. 

When  we  examine  the  Cresarean  creed  J  which  Eusebius  presented  to  the  Council  as  a  fair 
statement  of  his  belief,  we  find  nothing  in  it  inconsistent  with  the  acceptance  of  the  kind  of 
Arianism  which  he  defends  in  his  epistle  to  Alexander,  and  which  he  evidently  supposed  to  be 
practically  the  Arianism  of  Arius  himself.  In  his  epistle  to  Euphration,  however,  Eusebius  seems 
at  first  glance  to  go  further  and  to  give  up  the  real  divinity  of  the  Son.  His  words  are,  "  Since 
the  Son  is  himself  God,  but  not  true  God."  But  we  have  no  right  to  interpret  these  words,  torn 
as  they  are  from  the  context  which  might  make  their  meaning  perfectly  plain,  without  due  regard 
to  Eusebius'  belief  expressed  elsewhere  in  this  epistle,  and  in  his  epistle  to  Alexander  which  was 
evidently  written  about  the  same  time.  In  the  epistle  to  Alexander  he  clearly  reveals  a  belief  in 
the  real  divinity  of  the  Son,  while  in  the  other  fragment  of  his  epistle  to  Euphration  he  dwells 
upon  the  subordination  of  the  Son  and  approves  the  Arian  opinion,  which  he  had  defended  also 
in  the  other  epistle,  that  the  "  Father  was  before  the  Son."  The  expression,  "  not  true  God  "  (a 
very  common  Arian  expression;  see  Athan.  Orat.  e.  Arian.  I.  6)  seems  therefore  to  have  been 

1   For  a  translation  of  the  creed  see  below,  p.  16,  where  it  is  ^iven  as  a  part  of  Kusebius'  epistle  to  the  Church  of  Cx-sarea. 


used  l.y  Fusebms  to  express  a  belief,  not  that  the  Son  did  not  possess  real  divinity  (as  the  genuine 
Arians  used  it),  hut  that  he  was  not  equal  to  the  Father,  who,  to  Eusebius' thought,  was  "true 
Cod."  lie  indeed  expressly  rails  the  Son  Ouk,  which  shows  —  when  the  sense  in  which  he  else- 
where use.  the  word  is  considered  —  that  he  certainly  did  believe  him  to  partake  of  Godhood. 
though,  in  some  mysterious  way,  in  a  smaller  decree,  or  in  a  less  complete  manner  than  the  Father. 
That  F.usebius  misunderstood  Arins,  and  did  not  perceive  that  he  actually  denied  all  real  deity 
to  the  Son,  was  due  doiil.tless  in  part  to  his  lack  of  theological  insight  (  Fusebius  was  never  a  great 
theologian),  in  part  to  hi*  habitual  dread  of  Sabellianism  (of  which  Arius  had  accused  Alexander, 
and  toward  which  Fusebius  evidently  thought  that  the  latter  was  tending),  which  led  him  to  look 
with  -real  favor  upon  the  pronounced  subordinationism  of  Arius,  and  thus  to  overlook  the  dan- 
gerous extreme  to  which  Arius  carried  that  subordinationism. 

\Ve  are  now.  the  writer  hopes,  prepared  to  admit  that  Kusebius,  after  the  breaking  out  of  the 
Arian  controversy,  became  an  Arian,  as  he  understood  Arianism,  and  supported  that  party  with 
considerable  vigor  ;  and  that  not  as  a  result  of  mere  personal  friendship,  but  of  theological  con- 
viction. At  the  same  time,  he  was  then,  as  always,  a  peace-loving  man,  and  while  lending  Arius 
his  approval  and  support,  he  united  with  other  Palestinian  bishops  in  enjoining  upon  him  submis- 
sion to  his  bishop  (So/omen,  //.  1'..  I.  15).  As  an  Arian,  then,  and  yet  possessed  with  the  desire 
of  securing,  if  it  were  possible,  peace  and  harmony  between  the  two  factions,  Kusebius  appeared  at 
the  Council  of  Nu  a-a,  and  there  signed  a  creed  containing  Athanasian  doctrine  and  anathematizing 
the  chief  tenets  of  Arius.  I  low  arc'  we  to  explain  his  conduct?  We  shall,  perhaps,  do  best  to  let 
him  explain  his  own  conduct.  In  his  letter  to  the  church  of  Cajsarea  (preserved  by  Socrates, 
//.  /•'..  1.  X,  as  well  as  by  other  authors),  he  writes  as  follows  :  — 

"  What  was  transacted  concerning  ecclesiastical  faith  at  the  Great  Council  assembled  at 
Niciea  you  have  probably  learned,  Beloved,  from  other  sources,  rumour  being  wont  to  precede  the 
accurate  account  of  what  is  doing.  But  lest  in  such  reports  the  circumstances  of  the  case  ha\e 
been  misrepresented,  we  have  been  obliged  to  transmit  to  you,  first,  the  formula  of  faith  pre- 
sented by  ourselves  ;  and  next,  the  second,  which  the  Fathers  put  forth  with  some  additions  to 
our  words.  Our  own  paper,  then,  which  was  read  in  the  presence  of  our  most  pious  Fmperor, 
and  declared  to  be  good  and  unexceptionable,  ran  thus  :  — 

•• '  As  we  have  received  from  the  I'.ishops  \vh<>  preceded  us,  and  in  our  first  cntechisings,  and  when  we  received 
th--  Il'ily  I  .aver,  and  as  we  h;ue  learned  from  the  divine  Scriptures,  and  as  we  believed  and  taught  in  the  presby- 
ti-rv,  and  in  the  F.piscopate  itself,  so  believing  also  at  the  time  present,  we  report  to  you  our  faith,  and  it  is  this:  — 

••  •  \\Y  believe  in  i  hie  <  iod,  the  Father  Almighty,  the  Maker  of  all  things  visible  and  invisible.  And  in  One 
Lord  b-sus  Christ,  the  Word  of  (iod,  (iod  from  Cod,  Light  from  Light,  Life  from  Life,  Son  Only-begotten,  first- 
born of  every  creature,  before  all  the  ages,  begotten  from  the  Father,  by  whom  also  all  things  were  made;  who 
for  our  sahation  was  made  flesh,  and  lived  among  men,  and  suffered,  and  rose  again  the  third  day,  and  ascended  to 
the  Father,  and  will  come  again  in  glory  to  judge  quick  and  dead.  And  we  believe  also  in  One  IlolyOhost; 
bdie\  ing  each  of  These  to  be  and  to  exist,  the  father  truly  Father,  and  the  Son  truly  Son,  and  the  Holy  ('.host 
truly  Holy  Chost,  as  also  our  Lord,  sending  forth  His  disciples  for  the  preaching,  said,  Go,  teach  all  nations,  l>ap-^  /•'.•-"/  i»  lh<  Xiinif  i'f  thi  I-'ttth  >-,  n int  <>/  t>'i<  .W,  mi,/  i'f  the  Holy  (.iliost.  Concerning  whom  we  confidently 
altirm  that  so  we  hold,  and  so  we  think,  and  so  we  have  held  aforetime,  and  we  maintain  this  faith  unto  the  death, 
anathemati/ing  every  godless  heresy.  That  this  \ve  have  ever  thought  from  our  heart  and  soul,  from  the  time  we 
recollect  ourselves,  and  now  think  and  say  in  truth,  before  Cod  Almighty  and  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  do  we  witness, 
being  able  by  proofs  to  show  and  to  convince  you,  that,  even  in  times  past,  such  has  been  our  belief  and 

"On  this  faith  being  publicly  put  f>rth  by  us,  no  room  for  contradiction  appeared;  but  our 
most  pious  Fmperor,  before  any  one  else,  testified  that  it  comprised  most  orthodox  statements. 
He  confessed,  moreover,  that  such  were  his  own  sentiments  ;  and  he  advised  all  present  to  agree 
to  it,  and  to  subscribe  its  articles  and  to  assent  to  them,  with  the  insertion  of  the  single  word, 
'One  in  substance'  ( u/uxn'-im^  ),  which,  moreover,  he  interpreted  as  not  in  the  sense  of  the  affec- 
tions of  bodies,  nor  as  it  the  Son  subsisted  from  the  Father,  in  the  way  of  division,  or  any  sever- 


ance  ;  for  that  the  immaterial  and  intellectual  and  incorporeal  nature  could  not  be  the  subject  of 
any  corporeal  affection,  but  that  it  became  us  to  conceive  of  such  things  in  a  divine  and  ineffable 
manner.  And  such  were  the  theological  remarks  of  our  most  wise  and  most  religious  Emperor; 
but  they,  with  a  view  to  the  addition  of '  One  in  substance,'  drew  up  the  following  formula  :  — 

"  '  We  believe  in  One  God,  the  Father  Almighty,  Maker  of  all  things  visible  and  invisible  :  —  And  in  One 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  begotten  of  the  Father,  Only-begotten,  that  is,  from  the  Substance  of  the 
Father;  God  from  God,  Light  from  Light,  very  God  from  very  God,  begotten,  not  made,  One  in  substance  with  the 
Father,  by  whom  all  things  were  made,  both  things  in  heaven  and  things  in  earth;  who  fur  us  men  and  for  our 
salvation  eame  down  and  was  made  flesh,  was  made  man,  suffered,  and  rose  again  the  third  day,  ascended  into 
heaven,  and  cometh  to  judge  quick  and  dead. 

"'  And  in  the  Holy  Ghost.  But  those  who  say,  "Once  He  was  not,"  and  "Before-  His  generation  He  was 
not,"  and  "  lie  came  to  be  from  nothing,"  or  those  who  pretend  that  the  Son  of  God  is  "  Of  other  subsistence  or 
substance,"  or  "  created,"  or  "  alterable,"  or  "mutable,"  the  Catholic  Church  anathematizes.' 

"  On  their  dictating  this  formula,  we  did  not  let  it  pass  without  inquiry  in  what  sense  they 
introduced  '  of  the  substance  of  the  Father,'  and  '  one  in  substance  with  the  Father.'  Accord- 
ingly questions  and  explanations  took  place,  and  the  meaning  of  the  words  underwent  the  scrutiny 
of  reason.  And  they  professed  that  the  phrase  '  of  the  substance  '  was  indicative  of  the  Son's 
being  indeed  from  the  Father,  yet  without  being  as  if  a  part  of  Him.  And  with  this  understand- 
ing we  thought  good  to  assent  to  the  sense  of  such  religious  doctrine,  teaching,  as  it  did,  that  the 
Son  was  from  the  Father,  not,  however,  a  part  of  His  substance.  On  this  account  we  assented  to 
the  sense  ourselves,  without  declining  even  the  term  '  One  in  substance,'  peace  being  the  object 
which  we  set  before  us,  and  steadfastness  in  the  orthodox  view.  In  the  same  way  we  also 
admitted  '  begotten,  not  made  ' ;  since  the  Council  alleged  that  '  made  '  was  an  appellative  com- 
mon to  the  other  creatures  which  came  to  be  through  the  Son,  to  whom  the  Son  had  no  likeness. 
Wherefore,  said  they,  He  was  not  a  work  resembling  the  things  which  through  Him  came  to  be, 
but  was  of  a  substance  which  is  too  high  for  the  level  of  any  work,  and  which  the  Divine  oracles 
teach  to  have  been  generated  from  the  Father,  the  mode  of  generation  being  inscrutable  and 
incalculable  to  every  generated  nature.  And  so,  too,  on  examination  there  are  grounds  for  say- 
ing that  the  Son  is  '  one  in  substance  '  with  the  Father ;  not  in  the  way  of  bodies,  nor  like  mortal 
beings,  for  1  le  is  not  such  by  division  of  substance,  or  by  severance  ;  no,  nor  by  any  affection,  or 
alteration,  or  changing  of  the  Father's  substance  and  power  (since  from  all  such  the  ingenerate 
nature  of  the  Father  is  alien),  but  because  'one  in  substance  with  the  Father'  suggests  that  the 
Son  of  God  bears  no  resemblance  to  the  generated  creatures,  but  that  to  His  Father  alone  who 
begat  Him  is  He  in  every  way  assimilated,  and  that  He  is  not  of  any  other  subsistence  and  sub- 
stance, but  from  the  Father. 

"  To  which  term  also,  thus  interpreted,  it  appeared  well  to  assent ;  since  we  were  aware  that, 
even  among  the  ancients,  some  learned  and  illustrious  Bishops  and  writers  have  used  the  term 
'  one  in  substance  '  in  their  theological  teaching  concerning  the  Father  and  Son.  So  much,  then, 
be  said  concerning  the  faith  which  was  published  ;  to  which  all  of  us  assented,  not  without  in- 
quiry, but  according  to  the  specified  senses,  mentioned  before  the  most  religious  Emperor  him- 
self, and  justified  by  the  fore-mentioned  considerations.  And  as  to  the  anathematism  published 
by  them  at  the  end  of  the  Faith,  it  did  not  pain  us,  because  it  forbade  to  use  words  not  in  Scrip- 
ture, from  which  almost  all  the  confusion  and  disorder  of  the  Church  have  come.  Since,  then, 
no  divinely  inspired  Scripture  has  used  the  phrases,  '  out  of  nothing '  and  '  once  He  was  not,'  and 
the  rest  which  follow,  there  appeared  no  ground  for  using  or  teaching  them  ;  to  which  also  we 
assented  as  a  good  decision,  since  it  had  not  been  our  custom  hitherto  to  use  these  terms. 
Moreover,  to  anathematize  '  Before  His  generation  He  was  not '  did  not  seem  preposterous,  in 
that  it  is  confessed  by  all  that  the  Son  of  God  was  before  the  generation  according  to  the  flesh. 
Nay,  our  most  religious  Emperor  did  at  the  time  prove,  in  a  speech,  that  He  was  in  being  even 
according  to  His  divine  generation  which  is  before  all  ages,  since  even  before  he  was  generated 

VOL.  i.  c 


in  energy,  He  was  in  virtue  with  the  Father  ingcncrately,  the  leather  being  always  Father,  as  King 
always  and  Saviour  always,  having  all  tilings  in  virtue,  and  being  always  in  the  same  respects  and 
in  the  same  way.  This  we  have  been  forred  to  transmit  to  you,  I'.eloved,  as  making  clear  to  you 
the  deliberation  of  our  inquiry  and  assent,  and  how  reasonably  we  resisted  even  to  the  last  minute, 
as  long  as  we  were  offended  at  statements  which  differed  from  our  own,  but  received  without 
contention  what  no  longer  pained  us,  as  soon  as,  on  a  candid  examination  of  the  sense  of  the 
words,  they  appeared  to  us  to  coincide  with  what  we  ourselves  have  professed  in  the  faith  which 
we  have  already  published."  ' 

It  will  be  seen  that  while  the  expressions  "of  the  substance  of  the  Father,"  "begotten,  not 
made,"  and  "  One  in  substance,"  or  "  consubstantial  with  the  Father,"  are  all  explicitly  anti-Arian- 
istic,  yet  none  of  them  contradicts  the  doctrines  held  by  Kusclmi:,  before  the  Council,  so  far  as  we 
can  learn  them  from  his  epistles  to  Alexander  and  Kuphration  and  from  the  Qesarean  creed.  His 
own  explanation  of  those  expressions,  which  it  is  to  be  observed  was  the  explanation  given  by  the  ' 
Council  itself,  and  which  therefore  he  was  fully  warranted  in  accepting,  —  even  though  it  may  not 
have  been  so  rigid  as  to  satisfy  an  Athanasius,  —  shows  us  how  this  is.  He  had  believed  before 
that  the  Son  partook  of  the  Codhood  in  very  truth,  that  He  was  "begotten,"  and  therefore  "not 
made."  if  "made"  implied  something  different  from  "begotten,"  as  the  Nicene  Fathers  held 
that  it  did;  and  he  had  believed  before  that  the  "Son  of  Cod  has  no  resemblance  to  created 
things,  but  is  in  every  respect  like  the  Father  only  who  begat  him,  and  that  He  is  of  no  other 
substance  or  essence  than  the  Father,"  and  therefore  if  that  was  what  the  word  "  Consubstantial" 
(o/Ao«v<"o?)  meant  he  could  not  do  otherwise  than  accept  that  too. 

It  is  clear  that  the  dread  of  Sabelhanism  was  still  before  the  eyes  of  Fnsebius,  and  was  the 
cause  of  his  hesitation  in  assenting  to  the  various  changes,  especially  to  the  use  of  the  word 
o/xoovmos,  which  had  been  a  Sabellian  word  and  had  been  rejected  on  that  account  by  the  Synod 
of  Antioch,  at  which  Paul  of  Samosata  had  been  condemned  some  sixty  years  before. 

It  still  remains  to  explain  Eusebius'  sanction  of  the  anathemas  attached  to  the  creed  which 
expressly  condemn  at  least  one  of  the  beliefs  which  he  had  himself  formerly  held,  viz.  :  that  the 
"  Father  was  before  the  Son,"  or  as  he  puts  it  elsewhere,  that  "  He  who  is  begat  him  who  was 
not."  The  knot  might  of  course  be  simply  cut  by  supposing  an  act  of  hypocrisy  on  his  part,  but 
the  writer  is  convinced  that  such  a  conclusion  does  violence  to  all  that  we  know  of  Fusebius  and 
of  his  subsequent  treatment  of  the  questions  involved  in  this  discussion.  It  is  quite  possible  to 
suppose  that  a  real  change  of  opinion  on  his  part  took  place  during  the  sessions  of  the  Council. 
Indeed  when  we  reali/.e  how  imperfect  and  incorrect  a  conception  of  Arianism  he  had  before 
the  Council  began,  and  how  clearly  its  true  bearing  was  there  brought  out  by  its  enemies,  we 
can  see  that  he  could  not  do  otherwise  than  change  ;  that  he  must  have  become  either  an  out- 
and-out  Arian,  or  an  opponent  of  Arianism  as  he  did.  When  he  learned,  and  learned  for  the  first 
time,  that  Arianism  meant  the  denial  of  all  essential  divinity  to  Christ,  and  when  he  saw  that  it 
involved  the  ascription  of  mutability  and  of  other  finite  attributes  to  him,  he  must  either  change 
entirely  his  views  on  those  points  or  he  must  leave  the  Arian  party.  To  him  who  with  all  his 
subordinationism  had  laid  in  all  his  writings  so  much  stress  on  the  divinity  of  the  Word  (even 
though  he  had  not  reali/.ed  exactly  what  that  divinity  involved)  it  would  have  been  a  revolution 
1:1  his  Christian  life  and  faith  to  have  admitted  what  he  now  learned  that  Arianism  involved. 
S:ibellianism  had  been  his  drearl,  but  now  this  new  fear,  which  had  aroused  so  large  a  portion  of 
the  Church,  seized  him  too,  and  he  felt  that  stand  must  be  made  against  this  too  great  separation 
of  Father  and  Son,  which  was  leading  to  dangerous  results.  Under  the  pressure  of  this  fear  it  is 
not  surprising  that  he  should  become  convinced  that  the  Arian  formula  —  "there  was  a  time  when 
the  Son  was  not"  —involved  serious  consequences,  and  that  Alexander  and  his  followers  should 
have  succeeded  in  pointing  out  to  him  its  untruth,  because  it  led  necessarily  to  a  false  conclusion. 
It  is  not  surprising,  moreover,  that  they  should  have  succeeded  in  explaining  to  him  at  least 

1     l!ir  trnnvl.ition  is  that  of  Newman,  .is  civen  in  the  Oxford  edition  of  Athanasius'  Sflfct  Treatises  against  Arianism,  p.  59  sq. 


partially  their  belief,  which,  as  his  epistle  to  Alexander  shows,  had  before  been  absolutely  incom- 
prehensible, that  the  Son  was  generated  from  all  eternity,  and  that  therefore  the  Father  did  not 
exist  before  him  in  a  temporal  sense. 

He  says  toward  the  close  of  his  epistle  to  the  Cresarean  church  that  he  had  not  been  accus- 
tomed to  use  such  expressions  as  "There  was  a  time  when  he  was  not,"  "  He  came  to  be  from 
nothing,"  etc.  And  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  he  speaks  the  truth.  Even  in  his  epistles 
to  Alexander  and  Euphration  he  does  not  use  those  phrases  (though  he  does  defend  the  doctrine 
taught  by  the  first  of  them),  nor  does  Arius  himself,  in  the  epistle  to  Alexander  upon  which 
Eusebius  apparently  based  his  knowledge  of  the  system,  use  those  expressions,  although  he  too 
teaches  the  same  doctrine.  The  fact  is  that  in  that  epistle  Arius  studiously  avoids  such  favorite 
Arian  phrases  as  might  emphasize  the  differences  between  himself  and  Alexander,  and  Eusebius 
seems  to  have  avoided  them  for  the  same  reason.  We  conclude  then  that  Eusebius  was  not  an 
Arian  (nor  an  adherent  of  Lucian)  before  318,  that  soon  after  that  date  he  became  an  Arian 
in  the  sense  in  which  he  understood  Arianism,  but  that  during  the  Council  of  Niccea  he  ceased  to 
be  one  in  any  sense.  His  writings  in  later  years  confirm  the  course  of  doctrinal  development 
which  we  have  supposed  went  on  in  his  mind.  He  never  again  defends  Arian  doctrines  in  his 
works,  and  yet  he  never  becomes  an  Athanasian  in  his  emphasis  upon  the  O/XOOWTIOF.  In  fact  he 
represents  a  mild  orthodoxy,  which  is  always  orthodox  —  when  measured  by  the  Nicenc  creed 
as  interpreted  by  the  Nicene  Council — and  yet  is  always  mild.  Moreover,  he  never  acquired 
an  affection  for  the  word  o/xooixnos,  which  to  his  mind  was  bound  up  with  too  many  evil  associations 
ever  to  have  a  pleasant  sound  to  him.  He  therefore  studiously  avoided  it  in  his  own  writings, 
although  clearly  showing  that  he  believed  fully  in  what  the  Nicene  Council  had  explained  it  to 
mean.  It  must  be  remembered  that  during  many  years  of  his  later  life  he  was  engaged  in  con- 
troversy with  Marcellus,  a  thorough-going  Sabellian,  who  had  been  at  the  time  of  the  Council  one 
of  the  strongest  of  Athanasius'  colleagues.  In  his  contest  with  him  it  was  again  anti-Sabellianistic 
polemics  which  absorbed  him  and  increased  his  distaste  for  opoovcriov  and  minimized  his  emphasis 
upon  the  distinctively  anti-Arianistic  doctrines  formulated  at  Nicrea.  For  any  except  the  very 
wisest  minds  it  was  a  matter  of  enormous  difficulty  to  steer  between  the  two  extremes  in  those 
times  of  strife  ;  and  while  combating  Sabellianism  not  to  fall  into  Arianism,  and  while  combating 
the  latter  not  to  be  engulfed  in  the  former.  That  Eusebius  under  the  constant  pressure  of  the 
one  fell  into  the  other  at  one  time,  and  was  in  occasional  danger  of  falling  into  it  again  in  later 
years,  can  hardly  be  cited  as  an  evidence  either  of  wrong  heart  or  of  weak  head.  An  Athanasius 
he  was  not,  but  neither  was  he  an  unsteady  weather-cock,  or  an  hypocritical  time-server. 

§  6.     The   Council  of  Nicaa. 

At  the  Council  of  Nicnea,  which  met  pursuant  to  an  imperial  summons  in  the  year  325  A.D., 
Eusebius  played  a  very  prominent  part.  A  description  of  the  opening  scenes  of  the  Council  is 
given  in  his  Vila  Constantini,  HI.  10  sq.  After  the  Emperor  had  entered  in  pomp  and  had  taken 
his  seat,  a  bishop  who  sat  next  to  him  upon  his  right  arose  and  delivered  in  his  honor  the  open- 
ing oration,  to  which  the  Emperor  replied  in  a  brief  Latin  address.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that 
this  bishop  was  our  Eusebius.  So/omen  (//.  R.  I.  19)  states  it  directly;  and  Eusebius,  although 
he  does  not  name  the  speaker,  yet  refers  to  him,  as  he  had  referred  to  the  orator  at  the  dedication 
of  Paulinas'  church  at  Tyre,  in  such  a  way  as  to  make  it  clear  that  it  was  himself;  and  moreover 
in  his  Vita  Constantini,  I.  i,  he  mentions  the  fact  that  he  had  in  the  midst  of  an  assembly  of  the 
servants  of  God  addressed  an  oration  to  the  Emperor  on  the  occasion  of  the  latter's  ricenna/ia, 
i.e.  in  325  A.D.  On  the  other  hand,  however,  Thcodoret  (//.  E.  I.  7)  states  that  this  opening 
oration  was  delivered  by  Eustathius,  bishop  of  Antioch  ;  while  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  and  Phi- 
lostorgius  (according  to  Nicetas  Choniates,  Thes.  de  or/hot/.  fi,t.  V.  7)  assign  it  to  Alexander  of 
Alexandria.  As  Lightfoot  suggests,  it  is  possible  to  explain  the  discrepancy  in  the  reports  by 

C  2 


supposing  that  Kustathius  and  Alexander,  tin-  two  great  patriarchs,  first  addressed  a  few  words 
to  the  Kmperor  and  that  then  Kusebius  delivered  the  regular  oration.  This  supposition  is  not  at 
all  unlikely,  for  it  would  be  quite  proper  for  the  two  highest  ecclesiastics  present  to  welcome  the 
Kmperor  formally  in  behalf  of  the  assembled  prelates,  before  the  regular  oration  was  delivered 
by  Kusebius.  At  the  same  time,  the  supposition  that  one  or  the  other  of  the  two  great  patriarchs 
must  have  delivered  the  opening  address  was  such  a  natural  one  that  it  may  have  been  adopted 
by  Theodore!  and  the  other  writers  referred  to  without  any  historical  basis.  It  is  in  any  case 
certain  that  the  regular  oration  was  delivered  by  Eusebius  himself  (see  the  convincing  arguments 
adduced  by  Stroth,  p.  \\vii.  sq.).  This  oration  is  no  longer  extant,  but  an  idea  of  its  character 
may  be  formed  from  the  address  delivered  by  Kusebius  at  the  Emperor's  tricennalia  (which  is 
still  extant  under  the  title  De  laudibus  Cons  fan  tint;  see  below,  p.  43)  and  from  the  general  tone 
of  his  Life  of  Constantine.  It  was  avowedly  a  panegyric,  and  undoubtedly  as  fulsome  as  it  was 
possible  to  make  it,  and  his  powers  in  that  direction  were  by  no  means  slight. 

That  Eusebius,  instead  of  the  bishop  of  some  more  prominent  church,  should  have  been 
selected  to  deliver  the  opening  address,  may  have  been  in  part  owing  to  his  recognized  standing 
as  the  most  learned  man  and  the  most  famous  writer  in  the  Church,  in  part  to  the  fact  that  he- 
was  not  as  pronounced  a  partisan  as  some  of  his  distinguished  brethren  ;  for  instance,  Alexander 
of  Alexandria,  and  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia  ;  and  finally  in  some  measure  to  his  intimate  relations 
with  the  Emperor.  How  and  when  his  intimacy  with  the  latter  grew  up  we  do  not  know.  As 
already  remarked,  he  seems  to  have  become  personally  acquainted  with  him  many  years  before, 
when  Constantine  passed  through  Crcsarea  in  the  train  of  Diocletian,  and  it  may  be  that  a  mutual 
friendship,  which  was  so  marked  in  later  years,  began  at  that  time.  However  that  may  be, 
Eusebius  seems  to  have  possessed  special  advantages  of  one  kind  or  another,  enabling  him  to 
come  into  personal  contact  with  official  circles,  and  once  introduced  to  imperial  notice,  his  wide 
learning,  sound  common  sense,  genial  temper  and  broad  charity  would  insure  him  the  friendship 
of  the  Emperor  himself,  or  of  any  other  worthy  officer  of  state.  We  have  no  record  of  an 
intimacy  between  Constantine  and  Eusebius  before  the  Council  of  Nicaea,  but  many  clear  intima- 
tions of  it  after  that  time.  In  fact,  it  is  evident  that  during  the  last  decade  at  least  of  the 
Emperor's  life,  few,  if  any,  bishops  stood  higher  in  his  esteem  or  enjoyed  a  larger  measure  of  his 
confidence.  Compare  for  instance  the  records  of  their  conversations  (contained  in  the  Vita 
Constantini,  I.  28  and  II.  9),  of  their  correspondence  (i/>.  II.  46,  III.  61,  IV.  35  and  36),  and 
the  words  of  Constantine  himself  (//>.  III.  60).  The  marked  attention  paid  by  him  to  the 
speeches  delivered  by  Eusebius  in  his  presence  (il>.  IV.  33  and  46)  is  also  to  be  noticed. 
Kusebius'  intimacy  with  the  imperial  family  is  shown  likewise  in  the  tone  of  the  letter  which  he 
wrote  to  Constantia,  the  sister  of  Constantine  and  wife  of  Licinius,  in  regard  to  a  likeness  of 
Christ  which  she  had  asked  him  to  send  her.  The  frankness  and  freedom  with  which  he  remon- 
strates with  her  for  what  he  considers  mistaken  zeal  on  her  part,  reveal  a  degree  of  familiarity 
which  could  have  come  only  from  long  and  cordial  relations  between  himself  and  his  royal 
correspondent.  Whatever  other  reasons  therefore  may  have  combined  to  indicate  Eusebius  as 
the  most  fitting  person  to  deliver  the  oration  in  honor  of  the  Emperor  at  the  Council  of  Nicnea, 
there  can  be  little  doubt  that  Constantine's  personal  friendship  for  him  had  much  to  do  with 
his  selection.  The  action  of  the  Council  on  the  subject  of  Arianism,  and  Eusebius'  conduct  in 
the  matter,  have  already  been  discussed.  Of  the  bishops  assembled  at  the  Council,  not  far  from 
three  hundred  in  number  (the  reports  of  eye-witnesses  vary  from  two  hundred  and  fifty  to  three 
hundred  and  eighteen),  all  but  two  signed  the  Nicene  creed  as  adopted  by  the  Council.  These 
two,  both  of  them  Egyptians,  were  banished  with  Arius  to  Illyria,  while  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia, 
and  Theognis  of  Nicrca,  who  subscribed  the  creed  itself  but  refused  to  assent  to  its  anathemas, 
were  also  banished  for  a  time,  but  soon  yielded,  and  were  restored  to  their  churches. 

Into  the  other  purposes  for  which  the  Nicene  Council  was  called,  —  the  settlement  of  the  dis- 
pute respecting  the  time  of  observing  Easter  and  the  healing  of  the  Meletian  schism,  —  it  is  not  neces- 


sary  to  enter  here.  We  have  no  record  of  the  part  which  Eusebius  took  in  these  transactions. 
Lightfoot  has  abundantly  shown  (p.  313  sq.)  that  the  common  supposition  that  Kusebius  was  the 
author  of  the  paschal  cycle  of  nineteen  years  is  false,  and  that  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that 
he  had  anything  particular  to  do  with  the  decision  of  the  paschal  question  at  this  Council. 

§  7.    Continuance  of  the  Arian   Controversy.     Eusebius'  Relations  to  the   Two  Parties. 

The  Council  of  Niccea  did  not  bring  the  Arian  controversy  to  an  end.  The  orthodox  party 
was  victorious,  it  is  true,  but  the  Arians  were  still  determined,  and  could  not  give  up  their  enmity 
against  the  opponents  of  Arius,  and  their  hope  that  they  might  in  the  end  turn  the  tables  on  their 
antagonists.  Meanwhile,  within  a  few  years  after  the  Council,  a  quarrel  broke  out  between  our 
Eusebius  and  Eustathius,  bishop  of  Antioch,  a  resolute  supporter  of  Nicene  orthodoxy.  Accord- 
ing to  Socrates  (II.  E.  I.  23)  and  Sozomen  (//.  E.  II.  18)  Eustathius  accused  Eusebius  of 
perverting  the  Nicene  doctrines,  while  Eusebius  denied  the  charge,  and  in  turn  taxed  Eustathius 
with  Sabellianism.  The  quarrel  finally  became  so  serious  that  it  was  deemed  necessary  to  sum- 
mon a  Council  for  the  investigation  of  Eustathius'  orthodoxy  and  the  settlement  of  the  dispute. 
This  Council  met  in  Antioch  in  330  A.D.  (see  Tillemont,  VII.  p.  651  sq.,  for  a  discussion  of  the 
date),  and  was  made  up  chiefly  of  bishops  of  Arian  or  semi-Arian  tendencies.  This  fact,  however, 
brings  no  discredit  upon  Eusebius.  The  Council  was  held  in  another  province,  and  he  can  have 
had  nothing  to  do  with  its  composition.  In  fact,  convened,  as  it  was,  in  Eustathius'  own  city,  it 
must  have  been  legally  organized  ;  and  indeed  Eustathius  himself  acknowledged  its  jurisdiction 
by  appearing  before  it  to  answer  the  charges  made  against  him.  Theodoret's  absurd  account  of 
the  origin  of  the  synod  and  of  the  accusations  brought  against  Eustathius  (H.  E.  I.  21)  bears 
upon  its  face  the  stamp  of  falsehood,  and  is,  as  Hefele  has  shown  (Conciliengeschichte,  I.  451), 
hopelessly  in  error  in  its  chronology.  It  is  therefore  to  be  rejected  as  quite  worthless.  The 
decision  of  the  Council  doubtless  fairly  represented  the  views  of  the  majority  of  the  bishops  of 
that  section,  for  we  know  that  Arianism  had  a  very  strong  hold  there.  To  think  of  a  packed  Council 
and  of  illegal  methods  of  procedure  in  procuring  the  verdict  against  Eustathius  is  both  unnecessary 
and  unwarrantable.  The  result  of  the  Council  was  the  deposition  of  Eustathius  from  his  bishopric 
and  his  banishment  by  the  Emperor  to  Illyria,  where  he  afterward  died.  There  is  a  division  of 
opinion  among  our  sources  in  regard  to  the  immediate  successor  of  Eustathius.  All  of  them 
agree  that  Eusebius  was  asked  to  become  bishop  of  Antioch,  but  that  he  refused  the  honor,  and 
that  Euphronius  was  chosen  in  his  stead.  Socrates  and  Sozomen,  however,  inform  us  that  the 
election  of  Eusebius  took  place  immediately  after  the  deposition  of  Eustathius,  while  Theodoret 
(H.  E.  I.  22)  names  Eulalius  as  Eustathius'  immediate  successor,  and  states  that  he  lived  but  a 
short  time,  and  that  Eusebius  was  then  asked  to  succeed  him.  Theodoret  is  supported  by 
Jerome  (Chron.,  year  of  Abr.  2345)  and  by  Philostorgius  (H.  E.  III.  15),  both  of  whom  insert 
a  bishop  Eulalius  between  Eustathius  and  Euphronius.  It  is  easier  to  suppose  that  Socrates  and 
Sozomen  may  have  omitted  so  unimportant  a  name  at  this  point  than  that  the  other  three  witnesses 
inserted  it  without  warrant.  Socrates  indeed  implies  in  the  same  chapter  that  his  knowledge  of 
these  affairs  is  limited,  and  it  is  not  surprising  that  Eusebius'  election,  which  caused  a  great  stir, 
should  have  been  connected  in  the  mind  of  later  writers  immediately  with  Eustathius'  deposi- 
tion, and  the  intermediate  steps  forgotten.  It  seems  probable,  therefore,  that  immediately 
after  the  condemnation  of  Eustathius,  Eulalius  was  appointed  in  his  place,  perhaps  by  the  same 
Council,  and  that  after  his  death,  a  few  months  later,  Eusebius,  who  had  meanwhile  gone  back  to 
Cassarea,  was  elected  in  due  order  by  another  Council  of  neighboring  bishops  summoned  for 
the  purpose,  and  that  he  was  supported  by  a  large  party  of  citizens.  It  is  noticeable  that  the 
letter  written  by  the  Emperor  to  the  Council,  which  wished  to  transfer  Eusebius  to  Antioch  (see 
Vita  Const.  III.  62),  mentions  in  its  salutation  the  names  of  five  bishops,  but  among  them  is 
only  one  (Theodotus^  who  is  elsewhere  named  as  present  at  the  Council  which  deposed  Eusta- 


thins,  while  Euscbius  of  Nicomedia,  and  Theognis  of  Nicsea,  as  well  as  others  whom  we  know  to 
have  been  on  hand  on  that  occasion,  are  not  referred  to  by  the  Emperor.  This  fact  certainly 
seems  to  point  to  a  different  council. 

It  is  greatly  to  Euscbius1  credit  that  he  refused  the  call  extended  to  him.  Had  he  been 
governed'  simply  by  selfi,h  ambition  he  would  certainly  have  accepted  it,  for  the  patriarchate 
of  Antioch  stood  at  that  time  next  to  Alexandria  in  point  of  honor  in  the  Eastern  Church. 
The  Emperor  commended  him  very  highly  for  his  decision,  in  his  epistles  to  the  people  of 
Antioch  and  to  the  Council  (  Vita  Const.  111.  60,  62),  and  in  that  to  Eusebius  himself  (il>.  111.  61  ). 
He  saw  in  it  a  desire  on  Eusebius1  part  to  observe  the  ancient  canon  of  the  Church,  which 
forbade  the  transfer  of  a  bishop  from  one  see  to  another.  Hut  that  in  itself  can  hardly  have  been 
sufficient  to  deter  the  latter  from  accepting  the  high  honor  offered  him,  for  it  was  broken  without 
scruple  on  all  sides.  It  is  more  probable  that  he  saw  that  the  schism  of  the  Antiochcnes  would 
be  embittered  by  the  induction  into  the  bishopric  of  that  church  of  Eu.-,tathius'  chief  opponent, 
and  that  he  did  not  feel  that  he  had  a  right  so  to  divide  the  Church  of  Cod.  Eusebius'  general 
character,  as  known  to  us,  justifies  us  in  supposing  that  this  high  motive  had  much  to  do  with 
his  decision.  We  may  suppose  also  that  so  difficult  a  place  can  have  had  no  very  great  attractions 
for  a  man  of  his  age  and  of  his  peace-loving  disposition  and  scholarly  tastes.  In  Crcsarea  he  had 
spent  his  life  ;  there  he  had  the  great  library  of  Pamphilus  at  his  disposal,  and  leisure  to  pursue 
his  literary  work.  In  Antioch  he  would  have  found  himself  compelled  to  plunge  into  the  midst 
of  quarrels  and  seditions  of  all  kinds,  and  would  have  been  obliged  to  devote  his  entire  attention 
to  the  performance  of  his  official  duties.  His  own  tastes  therefore  must  have  conspired  with  his 
sense  of  duty  to  lead  him  to  reject  the  proffered  call  and  to  remain  in  the  somewhat  humbler 
station  which  he  already  occupied. 

Not  long  after  the  deposition  of  Eustathius,  the  Arians  and  their  sympathi/.ers  began  to  work 
more  energetically  to  accomplish  the  ruin  of  Athanasius,  their  greatest  foe.  He  had  become 
Alexander's  successor  as  bishop  of  Alexandria  in  the  year  326,  and  was  the  acknowledged  head  of 
the  orthodox  party.  If  he  could  be  brought  into  discredit,  there  might  be  hopes  of  restoring 
Arius  to  his  position  in  Alexandria,  and  of  securing  for  Arianism  a  recognition,  and  finally  a 
dominating  influence  in  the  church  at  large.  To  the  overthrow  of  Athanasius  therefore  all  good 
Arians  bent  their  energies.  They  found  ready  accomplices  in  the  schismatical  Meletians  of 
Egypt,  who  were  bitter  enemies  of  the  orthodox  church  of  Alexandria.  It  was  useless  to  accuse 
Athanasius  of  heterodoxy  :  he  was  too  widely  known  as  the  pillar  of  the  orthodox  faith.  Charges 
must  be  framed  of  another  sort,  and  of  a  sort  to  stir  up  the  anger  of  the  Emperor  against  him. 
The  Arians  therefore  and  the  Meletians  began  to  spread  the  most  vile  and  at  the  same  time 
absurd  stories  about  Athanasius  (see  especially  the  latter's  ApoL  c.  Arian.  §  59  sq.).  These  at 
last  became  so  notorious  that  the  Emperor  summoned  Athanasius  to  appear  and  make  his  defense 
before  a  council  of  bishops  to  be  held  in  Coisarea  (Sozomen,  //.  E.  II.  25  ;  Theodoret,  //.  E. 
\.  2>S).  Athanasius.  however,  fearing  that  the  Council  would  be  composed  wholly  of  his  enemies, 
and  that  it  would  therefore  be  impossible  to  secure  fair  play,  excused  himself  and  remained  away. 
Hut  in  the  following  year  (see  So/omen,  //.  E.  II.  25)  he  received  from  the  Emperor  a  summons 
to  appear  before  a  council  at  Tyre.  The  summons  was  too  peremptory  to  admit  of  a  refusal, 
and  Athanasius  therefore  attended,  accompanied  by  many  of  his  devoted  adherents  (see  Sozomen, 
ib.;  Theodoret,  //.  E.  I.  30;  Socrates,  //.  E.  I.  28;  Athanasius,  ApoL  c.  Arian.  §  71  sq. ; 
Eusebius,  Vita  Const.  IV.  41  sq.,  and  Epiphanius,  Hier.  LXVIII.  8).  After  a  time,  perceiving 
that  he  had  no  chance  of  receiving  fair  play,  he  suddenly  withdrew  from  the  Council  and  proceeded 
directly  to  Constantinople,  in  order  to  lay  his  case  before  the  Emperor  himself,  and  to  induce  the 
latter  to  allow  him  to  meet  his  accusers  in  his  presence,  and  plead  his  cause  before  him.  There 
was  nothing  for  the  Synod  to  do  after  his  flight  but  to  sustain  the  charges  brought  against  him, 
some  of  which  he  had  not  stayed  to  refute,  and  to  pass  condemnation  upon  him.  Besides  various 
immoral  and  sacrilegious  deeds  of  which  he  was  accused,  his  refusal  to  appear  before  the  Council  of 


Ciesarea  the  previous  year  was  made  an  important  item  of  the  prosecution.  It  was  during  this 
Council  that  Potamo  flung  at  Eusebius  the  taunt  of  cowardice,  to  which  reference  was  made  above, 
and  which  doubtless  did  much  to  confirm  Kusebius'  distrust  of  and  hostility  to  the  Athanasian  party. 
Whether  Eusebius  of  Crcsarea,  as  is  commonly  supposed,  or  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia,  or  some 
other  bishop,  presided  at  this  Council  we  are  not  able  to  determine.  The  account  of  Epiphanius 
seems  to  imply  that  the  former  was  presiding  at  the  time  that  Potamo  made  his  untimely  accusa- 
tion. Our  sources  are.  most  of  them,  silent  on  the  matter,  but  according  to  Valesius,  Eusebius 
of  Nicomedia  is  named  by  some  of  them,  but  which  they  are  1  have  not  been  able  to  discover. 
We  learn  from  Socrates  (//.  E.  I.  28),  as  well  as  from  other  sources,  that  this  Synod  of  Tyre  was 
held  in  the  thirtieth  year  of  Constantine's  reign,  that  is,  between  July,  334,  and  July,  335.  As 
the  Council  was  closed  only  in  time  for  the  bishops  to  reach  Jerusalem  by  July,  335,  it  is  probable 
that  it  was  convened  in  335  rather  than  in  334.  From  Sozomen  (//.  E.  II.  25)  we  learn  also 
that  the  Synod  of  Ca^sarea  had  been  held  the  preceding  year,  therefore  in  333  or  334  (the  latter 
being  the  date  commonly  given  by  historians).  While  the  Council  of  Tyre  was  still  in  session, 
the  bishops  were  commanded  by  Constantine  to  proceed  immediately  to  Jerusalem  to  take  part  in 
the  approaching  festival  to  be  held  there  on  the  occasion  of  his  tricenualia.  The  scene  was  one 
of  great  splendor.  Bishops  were  present  from  all  parts  of  the  world,  and  the  occasion  was 
marked  by  the  dedication  of  the  new  and  magnificent  basilica  which  Constantine  had  erected  upon 
the  site  of  Calvary  (Theodoret,  I.  31  ;  Socrates,  I.  28  and  33;  Sozomen,  II.  26  ;  Eusebius,  Vita 
Const.  IV.  41  and  43).  The  bishops  gathered  in  Jerusalem  at  this  time  held  another  synod 
before  separating.  In  this  they  completed  the  work  begun  at  Tyre,  by  re-admitting  Arius  and 
his  adherents  to  the  communion  of  the  Church  (see  Socrates,  I.  33  and  Sozomen,  II.  27).  Accord- 
ing to  Sozomen  the  Emperor,  having  been  induced  to  recall  Arius  from  banishment  in  order  to 
reconsider  his  case,  was  presented  by  the  latter  with  a  confession  of  faith,  which  was  so  worded 
as  to  convince  Constantine  of  his  orthodoxy.  lie  therefore  sent  Arius  and  his  companion 
Euzoius  to  the  bishops  assembled  in  Jerusalem  with  the  request  that  they  would  examine  the 
confession,  and  if  they  were  satisfied  with  its  orthodoxy  would  re-admit  them  to  communion. 
The  Council,  which  was  composed  largely  of  Arius'  friends  and  sympathizers,  was  only  too  glad 
to  accede  to  the  Emperor's  request. 

Meanwhile  Athanasius  had  induced  Constantine,  out  of  a  sense  of  justice,  to  summon  the 
bishops  that  had  condemned  him  at  Tyre  to  give  an  account  of  their  proceedings  before  the 
Emperor  himself  at  Constantinople.  This  unexpected,  and,  doubtless,  not  altogether  welcome 
summons  came  while  the  bishops  were  at  Jerusalem,  and  the  majority  of  them  at  once  returned 
home  in  alarm,  while  only  a  few  answered  the  call  and  repaired  to  Constantinople.  Among  these 
were  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia,  Theognis  of  Nicrea,  Patrophilus  of  Scythopolis,  and  other  prominent 
Arians,  and  with  them  our  Eusebius  (Athanasius,  Apol.  c.  Arian.  §§86  and  87;  Socrates,  I.  33- 
35  ;  Sozomen,  II.  28).  The  accusers  of  Athanasius  said  nothing  on  this  occasion  in  regard  to 
his  alleged  immoralities,  for  which  he  had  been  condemned  at  Tyre,  but  made  another  equally 
trivial  accusation  against  him,  and  the  result  was  his  banishment  to  Gaul.  Whether  Constantine 
banished  him  because  he  believed  the  charge  brought  against  him,  or  because  he  wished  to  pre- 
serve him  from  the  machinations  of  his  enemies  (as  asserted  by  his  son  Constantine,  and  appar- 
ently believed  by  Athanasius  himself;  see  his  Apol.  c.  Arian.  §  87),  or  because  he  thought  that 
Athanasius'  absence  would  allay  the  troubles  in  the  Alexandrian  church  we  do  not  know.  The 
latter  supposition  seems  most  probable.  In  any  case  he  was  not  recalled  from  banishment  until 
after  Constantine's  death.  Our  Eusebius  has  been  severely  condemned  by  many  historians  for 
the  part  taken  by  him  in  the  Eustathian  controversy  and  especially  in  the  war  against  Athanasius. 
In  justice  to  him  a  word  or  two  must  be  spoken  in  his  defense.  So  far  as  his  relations  to 
Eustathius  are  concerned,  it  is  to  be  noticed  that  the  latter  commenced  the  controversy  by 
accusing  Eusebius  of  heterodoxy.  Eusebius  himself  did  not  begin  the  quarrel,  and  very  likely 
had  no  desire  to  engage  in  any  such  doctrinal  strife  ;  but  he  was  compelled  to  defend  him- 


self,  and  in  doing  so  he  could  not  do  otherwise  than  accuse  Kustathius  of  Sabellianism  ;  for  if 
the  latter  was  not  satisfied  with  Kusebius'  orthodoxy,  which  Kusebius  himself  believed  to  be 
truly  Xicene,  then  lie  must  be  leaning  too  far  toward  the  other  extreme;  that  is,  toward  Sabel 
lianism.  There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  Kusebius  was  perfectly  straightforward  and  honorable 
throughout  the  whole  controversy,  and  at  the  Council  of  Antioch  itself.  That  he  was  not  actuated 
by  unworthy  motives,  or  by  a  desire  for  revenge,  is  evinced  by  his  rejection  of  the  proffered  call  to 
Antioch,  the  acceptance  of  which  would  have  given  him  so  good  an  opportunity  to  triumph  over 
his  fallen  enemy.  It  must  be  admitted,  in  fact,  that  Kusebius  comes  out  of  this  controversy  with- 
out a  stain  of  any  kind  upon  his  character.  He  honestly  believed  Kustathius  to  be  a  Sabellian, 
and  he  acted  accordingly. 

Kusebius  has  been  blamed  still  more  severely  for  his  treatment  of  Athanasius.  But  again  the 
facts  must  be  looked  at  impartially.  It  is  necessary  always  to  remember  that  .Sabellianism  was  in 
the  beginning  and  remained  throughout  his  life  the  heresy  which  he  most  dreaded,  and  which 
he  had  perhaps  most  reason  to  dread.  He  must,  even  at  the  Council  of  Nicrea,  have  suspected 
Athanasius,  who  laid  so  much  stress  upon  the  unity  of  essence  on  the  part  of  Father  and  Son,  of 
a  leaning  toward  Sabellianistic  principles  ;  and  this  suspicion  must  have  been  increased  when  he 
discovered,  as  he  believed,  that  Athanasius'  most  staunch  supporter,  Kustathius,  was  a  genuine 
Sabellian.  Moreover,  on  the  other  side,  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  Kusebius  of  Nicomedia,  and 
all  the  other  leading  Arians,  had  signed  the  Xicene  creed  and  had  proclaimed  themselves  thor- 
oughly in  sympathy  with  its  teaching.  Our  Kusebius,  knowing  the  change  that  had  taken  place 
in  his  own  mind  upon  the  controverted  points,  may  well  have  believed  that  their  views  had  under- 
gone even  a  greater  change,  and  that  they  were  perfectly  honest  in  their  protestations  of  ortho- 
doxy. And  finally,  when  Arius  himself  presented  a  confession  of  faith  which  led  the  Emperor, 
who  had  had  a  personal  interview  with  him,  to  believe  that  he  had  altered  his  views  and  was  in 
complete  harmony  with  the  Nicene  faith,  it  is  not  surprising  that  our  Kusebius,  who  was  naturally 
unsuspicious,  conciliatory  and  peace-loving,  should  think  the  same  thing,  and  be  glad  to  receive 
Arius  back  into  communion,  while  at  the  same  time  remaining  perfectly  loyal  to  the  orthodoxy 
of  the  Xicene  creed  which  he  had  subscribed.  Meanwhile  his  suspicions  of  the  Arian  party 
being  in  large  measure  allayed,  and  his  distrust  of  the  orthodoxy  of  Athanasius  and  of  his  adhe- 
rents being  increased  by  the  course  of  events,  it  was  only  natural  that  he  should  lend  more  or  less 
credence  to  the  calumnies  which  were  so  industriously  circulated  against  Athanasius.  To  charge 
him  with  dishonesty  for  being  influenced  by  these  reports,  which  seem  to  us  so  absurd  and  pal- 
pably calumnious,  is  quite  unwarranted.  Constantine,  who  was,  if  not  a  theologian,  at  least  a 
clear-headed  and  sharp-sighted  man,  believed  them,  and  why  should  Kusebius  not  have  done  the 
same?  The  incident  which  took  place  at  the  Council  of  Tyre  in  connection  with  Potamo  and 
himself  was  important  ;  for  whatever  doubts  he  may  have  had  up  to  that  time  as  to  the  truth  of 
the  accusations  made  against  Athanasius  and  his  adherents,  Potamo's  conduct  convinced  him  that 
the  charges  of  tyranny  and  high-handed  dealing  brought  against  the  whole  party  were  quite  true. 
It  could  not  be  otherwise  than  that  he  should  believe  that  the  good  of  the  Alexandrian  church, 
and  therefore  of  the  Church  at  large,  demanded  the  deposition  of  the  seditious  and  tyrannous 
archbishop,  who  was  at  the  same  time  quite  probably  Sabellianistic  in  his  tendencies.  It  must 
in  justice  be  noted  that  there  is  not  the  slightest  reason  to  suppose  that  our  Eusebius  had 
anything  to  do  with  the  dishonorable  intrigues  of  the  Arian  party  throughout  this  controversy. 
Athanasius,  who  cannot  say  enough  in  condemnation  of  the  tactics  of  Kusebius  of  Nicomedia  and 
his  supporters,  never  mentions  Kusebius  of  Ca^sarea  in  a  tone  of  bitterness.  He  refers  to  him 
occasionally  as  a  member  of  the  opposite  party,  but  he  has  no  complaints  to  utter  against  him, 
as  he  has  against  the  others.  This  is  very  significant,  and  should  put  an  end  to  all  suspicions  of 
unworthy  conduct  on  Kusebius1  part.  It  is  to  be  observed  that  the  latter,  though  having  good 
cause  as  he  believed  to  condemn  Athanasius  and  his  adherents,  never  acted  as  a  leader  in  the  war 
against  them.  His  name,  if  mentioned  at  all,  occurs  always  toward  the  end  of  the  list  as  one  of 


the  minor  combatants,  although  his  position  and  his  learning  would  have  entitled  him  to  take  the 
most  prominent  position  in  the  whole  affair,  if  he  had  cared  to.  He  was  but  true  to  his  general 
character  in  shrinking  from  such  a  controversy,  and  in  taking  part  in  it  only  in  so  far  as  his  con- 
science compelled  him  to.  We  may  suspect  indeed  that  he  would  not  have  made  one  of  the 
small  party  that  repaired  to  Constantinople  in  response  to  the  Emperor's  imperious  summons  had 
it  not  been  for  the  celebration  of  Constantine's  tricennalia,  which  was  taking  place  there  at  the 
time,  and  at  which  he  delivered,  on  the  special  invitation  of  the  Emperor  and  in  his  presence,  one 
of  his  greatest  orations.  Certain  it  is,  from  the  account  which  he  gives  in  his  Vita  Constantini, 
that  both  in  Constantinople  and  in  Jerusalem  the  festival  of  the  triicnnalia,  with  its  attendant  cere- 
monies, interested  him  much  more  than  did  the  condemnation  of  Athanasius. 

§   8.     Eusebius  and  Marccllus. 

It  was  during  this  visit  to  Constantinople  that  another  synod  was  held,  at  which  Eusebius  was 
present,  and  the  result  of  which  was  the  condemnation  and  deposition  of  the  bishop  Marcellus 
of  Ancyra  (see  Socrates,  I.  36  ;  So/omen,  II.  33  ;  Eusebius,  Contra  Marc.  II.  4).  The  attitude 
of  our  Eusebius  toward  Marcellus  is  again  significant  of  his  theological  tendencies.  Marcellus 
had  written  a  book  against  Asterius,  a  prominent  Arian,  in  which,  in  his  zeal  for  the  Nicene  ortho- 
doxy, he  had  laid  himself  open  to  the  charge  of  Sabellianism.  On  this  account  he  was  deposed 
by  the  Constantinopolitan  Synod,  and  our  Eusebius  was  urged  to  write  a  work  exposing  his  errors 
and  defending  the  action  of  the  Council.  As  a  consequence  he  composed  his  two  works  against 
Marcellus  which  will  be  described  later.  That  Eusebius,  if  not  in  the  case  of  Athanasius  and 
possibly  not  in  that  of  Eustathius,  had  at  least  in  the  present  case  good  ground  for  the  belief  that 
Marcellus  was  a  Sabellian,  or  Sabellianistic  in  tendency,  is  abundantly  proved  by  the  citations  which 
he  makes  from  Marcellus'  own  works  ;  and,  moreover,  his  judgment  and  that  of  the  Synod  was 
later  confirmed  even  by  Athanasius  himself.  Though  not  suspecting  Marcellus  for  some  time, 
Athanasius  finally  became  convinced  that  he  had  deviated  from  the  path  of  orthodoxy,  and,  as 
Newman  has  shown  (in  his  introduction  to  Athanasius'  fourth  discourse  against  the  Arians,  Oxford 
Library  of  the  Fathers,  vol.  19,  p.  503  sq.),  directed  that  discourse  against  his  errors  and  those 
of  his  followers. 

The  controversy  with  Marcellus  seems  to  have  been  the  last  in  which  Eusebius  was  engaged, 
and  it  was  opposition  to  the  dreaded  heresy  of  Sabellius  which  moved  him  here  as  in  all  the 
other  cases.  It  is  important  to  emphasize,  however,  what  is  often  overlooked,  that  though  Euse- 
bius during  these  years  was  so  continuously  engaged  in  controversy  with  one  or  another  of  the 
members  of  the  anti- Arian  party,  there  is  no  evidence  that  he  ever  deviated  from  the  doctrinal 
position  which  he  took  at  the  Council  of  Niccea.  After  that  date  it  was  never  Arianism  which 
he  consciously  supported  ;  it  was  never  the  Nicene  orthodoxy  which  he  opposed.  He  sup- 
ported those  members  of  the  old  Arian  party  who  had  signed  the  Nicene  creed  and  protested 
that  they  accepted  its  teaching,  against  those  members  of  the  opposite  party  whom  he  believed 
to  be  drifting  toward  Sabellianism,  or  acting  tyrannously  and  unjustly  toward  their  opponents. 
The  anti-Sabellianistic  interest  influenced  him  all  the  time,  but  his  post-Nicene  writings  contain 
no  evidence  that  he  had  fallen  back  into  the  Arianizing  position  which  he  had  held  before  325. 
They  reveal,  on  the  contrary,  a  fair  type  of  orthodoxy,  colored  only  by  its  decidedly  anti- 
Sabellian  emphasis. 

§   9.      The  Death  of  Eusebius. 

In  less  than  two  years  after  the  celebration  of  his  triccnnalia,  on  May  22,  337  A.D.,  the  great 
Constantine  breathed  his  last,  in  Nicomedia,  his  former  Capital.  Eusebius,  already  an  old  man, 
produced  a  lasting  testimonial  of  his  own  unbounded  affection  and  admiration  for  the  first  Chris- 
tian emperor,  in  his  Life  of  Constantine.  Soon  afterward  he  followed  his  imperial  friend  at  the 


advanced  age  of  nearly,  if  not  quite,  eighty  years.  The  exact  date  of  his  death  is  unknown,  but 
it  can  be  fixed  approximately.  We  know  from  So/omen  ( //.  A'.  III.  5)  that  in  the  summer  of 
$41,  when  a  council  was  held  at  Antioch  (on  the  date  of  the  Council,  which  we  are  able  to  iix 
with  great  exactness,  see  Hefele,  Conciliengesch.  I.  p.  502  sq.)  Acacius,  Kusebius' successor,  was 
already  bishop  of  Cresarca.  Socrates  ( //.  /:'.  H.  4)  ;md  So/omen  ( //.  E.  III.  2)  both  mention 
the  death  of  Kusebius  and  place  it  shortly  before  the  death  of  Constantine  the  younger,  which 
look  place  early  in  340  (see  Tillcmont's  Hist,  d,  s  Emp.  IV.  p.  327  sq.),  and  after  the  intrigues 
had  begun  which  resulted  in  Athanasius'  second  banishment.  We  are  thus  led  to  place  Kusebius' 
death  late  in  the  year  339,  or  early  in  the  year  340  (cf.  Lighttoot's  article,  p.  318). 


§    i.     Ens  fin  us  as  a    Writer. 

KCM -T.irs  was  one  of  the  most  voluminous  writers  of  antiquity,  and  his  labors  covered  almost 
every  field  of  theological  learning.  In  the  words  of  l.ighttoot  he  was  -'historian,  apologist, 
topographer,  exegete,  critic,  preacher,  dogmatic,  writer,  in  turn."  It  is  as  an  historian  that  he  is 
best  known,  but  the  importance  of  his  historical  writings  should  not  cause  us  to  overlook,  as 
modern  scholars  have  been  prone  to  do,  his  invaluable  productions  in  other  departments.  Light- 
foot  passes  a  very  just  judgment  upon  the  importance  of  his  works  in  the  following  words  :  "If 
the  permanent  utility  of  an  author's  labors  may  be  taken  as  a  test  of  literary  excellence,  Kusebius 
will  hold  a  very  high  place  indeed.  The  Ecclesiastical  History  is  absolutely  unique  and  indis- 
pensable. The  Chronicle  is  the  vast  storehouse  of  information  relating  to  the  ancient  monarchies 
of  the  world.  The  Preparation  and  Demonstration  are  the  most  important  contributions  to 
theology  in  their  own  province.  Kven  the  minor  works,  such  as  the  Martyrs  of  Palestine,  the 
Life  of  Constaniinc,  the  Questions  aihlressetl  to  Stcphaints  and  to  Mil ri mix,  and  others,  would 
leave  an  invparable  blank,  if  they  were  obliterated.  And  the  same  permanent  value  attaches  also 
to  his  more  technical  treatises.  The  Canons  and  Sections  have  never  yet  been  superseded  for 
their  particular  purpose.  The  Topography  of  Palestine  is  the  most  important  contribution  to  our 
knowledge  in  its  own  department.  In  short,  no  ancient  ecclesiastical  writer  has  laid  posterity 
under  heavier  obligations." 

If  we  look  in  Kusebius'  works  for  evidences  of  brilliant  genius  we  shall  be  disappointed.  He- 
did  not  possess  a  great  creative  mind  like  Origen's  or  Augustine's.  His  claim  to  greatness  rests 
upon  his  vast  erudition  and  his  sterling  sense.  His  powers  of  acquisition  were  remarkable  and 
his  diligence  in  study  unwearied.  He  had  at  his  command  undoubtedly  more  acquired  material 
than  any  man  of  his  age,  and  he  possessed  that  true  literary  and  historical  instinct  which  enabled 
him  to  select  from  his  vast  stores  of  knowledge  those  things  which  it  was  most  worth  his  while  to 
tell  to  the  world.  His  writings  therefore  remain  valuable  while  the  works  of  many  others,  perhaps 
no  less  richly  equipped  than  himself  for  the  mission  of  adding  to  the  sum  of  human  knowledge, 
are  entirely  forgotten.  He  thus  had  the  ability  to  do  more  than  acquire;  he  had  the  ability 
to  impart  to  others  the  very  best  of  that  which  he  acquired,  and  to  make  it  useful  to  them.  There 
is  not  in  his  writings  the  brilliancy  which  we  find  in  some  others,  there  is  not  the  same  sparkle 
and  freshness  of  new  and  suggestive  thought,  there  is  not  the  same  impress  of  an  overmastering 
individuality  which  transforms  everything  it  touches.  There  is,  however,  a  true  and  solid  merit 
which  marks  his  works  almost  without  exception,  and  raises  them  above  the  commonplace.  His 
exegesis  is  superior  to  that  of  most  of  his  contemporaries,  and  his  apologetics  is  marked  by 
fairness  of  statement,  breadth  of  treatment,  and  instinctive  appreciation  of  the  difference  between 
the  important  and  the  unimportant  points  under  discussion,  which  give  to  his  apologetic  works  a 


permanent  value.  His  wide  acquaintance,  too,  with  other  systems  than  his  own,  and  with  the 
products  of  Pagiin  as  well  as  Christian  thought,  enabled  him  to  see  things  in  their  proper  relations 
and  to  furnish  a  treatment  of  the  great  themes  of  Christianity  adapted  to  the  wants  of  those  who 
had  looked  beyond  the  confines  of  a  single  school.  At  the  same  time  it  mu;,t  be  acknowledged 
that  he  was  not  always  equal  to  the  grand  opportunities  which  his  acquaintance  with  the  works 
and  lives  of  other  men  and  other  peoples  opened  before  him.  He  does  not  always  reveal  the 
possession  of  that  high  quality  of  genius  which  is  able  to  interpret  the  nu/st  various  forces  and  to 
discover  the  higher  principles  of  unity  which  alone  make  them  intelligible  ;  indeed,  he  often  loses 
himself  completely  in  a  wilderness  of  thoughts  and  notions  which  have  come  to  him  from  other 
men  and  other  ages,  and  the  result  is  dire  confusion. 

We  shall  be  disappointed,  too,  if  we  seek  in  the  works  of  Kusebius  for  evidences  of  a  refined 
literary  taste,  or  for  any  of  the  charms  which  attach  to  the  writings  of  a  great  master  of  compo- 
sition. His  style  is,  as  a  rule,  involved  and  obscure,  often  painfully  rambling  and  incoherent. 
This  quality  is  due  in  large  part  to  the  desultoriness  of  his  thinking.  He  did  not  often  enough 
clearly  define  and  draw  the  boundaries  of  his  subject  before  beginning  to  write  upon  it.  He 
apparently  did  much  of  his  thinking  after  he  had  taken  pen  in  hand,  and  did  not  subject  what 
he  had  thus  produced  to  a  sufficiently  careful  revision,  if  to  any  revision  at  all.  Thoughts  and 
suggestions  poured  in  upon  him  while  he  was  writing  ;  and  he  was  not  always  able  to  resist  the 
temptation  to  insert  them  as  they  came,  often  to  the  utter  perversion  of  his  train  of  thought,  and 
to  the  ruin  of  the  coherency  and  perspicuity  of  his  style.  It  must  be  acknowledged,  too,  that  his 
literary  taste  was,  on  the  whole,  decidedly  vicious.  Whenever  a  flight  of  eloquence  is  attempted 
by  him,  as  it  is  altogether  too  often,  his  style  becomes  hopelessly  turgid  and  pretentious.  At  such 
times  his  skill  in  mixing  metaphors  is  something  astounding  (compare,  for  instance,  //.  E.  II.  14). 
On  the  other  hand,  his  works  contain  not  a  few  passages  of  real  beauty.  This  is  especially  true 
of  his  Martyrs  of  Palestine,  where  his  enthusiastic  admiration  for  ami  deep  sympathy  with  the 
heroes  of  the  faith  cause  him  often  to  forget  himself  and  to  describe  their  sufferings  in  language 
of  genuine  fire  or  pathos.  At  times,  too,  when  he  has  a  sharply  defined  and  absorbing  aim  in 
mind,  and  when  the  subject  with  which  he  is  dealing  does  not  seem  to  him  to  demand  rhetorical 
adornment,  he  is  simple  and  direct  enough  in  his  language,  showing  in  such  cases  that  his 
commonly  defective  style  is  not  so  much  the  consequence  of  an  inadequate  command  of  the 
Greek  tongue  as  of  desultory  thinking  and  vicious  literary  taste. 

But  while  we  find  much  to  criticise  in  Eusebius'  writings,  we  ought  not  to  fail  to  give  him 
due  credit  for  the  conscientiousness  and  faithfulness  with  which  he  did  his  work.  He  wrote  often, 
it  is  true,  too  rapidly  for  the  good  of  his  style,  and  he  did  not  always  revise  his  works  as  care- 
fully as  he  should  have  done  ;  but  we  seldom  detect  undue  haste  in  the  collection  of  materials  or 
carelessness  and  negligence  in  the  use  of  them.  He  seems  to  have  felt  constantly  the  responsi- 
bilities which  rested  upon  him  as  a  scholar  and  writer,  and  to  have  done  his  best  to  meet  those 
responsibilities.  It  is  impossible  to  avoid  contrasting  him  in  this  respect  with  the  most  learned 
man  of  the  ancient  Latin  Church,  St.  Jerome.  The  haste  and  carelessness  with  which  the  latter 
composed  his  De  Viris  Illustribits,  and  with  which  he  translated  and  continued  Eusebius'  Chronicle, 
remain  an  everlasting  disgrace  to  him.  An  examination  of  those  and  of  some  others  of  Jerome's 
works  must  tend  to  raise  Eusebius  greatly  in  our  esteem.  He  was  at  least  conscientious  and 
honest  in  his  work,  and  never  allowed  himself  to  palm  off  ignorance  as  knowledge,  or  to  deceive 
his  readers  by  sophistries,  misstatements,  and  pure  inventions.  He  aimed  to  put  the  reader  into 
possession  of  the  knowledge  which  he  had  himself  acquired,  but  was  always  conscientious  enough 
to  stop  there,  and  not  attempt  to  make  fancy  play  the  rote  of  fact. 

One  other  point,  which  was  mentioned  some  pages  back,  and  to  which  Lightfoot  calls  particular 
attention,  should  be  referred  to  here,  because  of  its  bearing  upon  the  character  of  Eusebius' 
writings.  He  was,  above  all  things,  an  apologist ;  and  the  apologetic  aim  governed  both  the 
selection  of  his  subjects  and  method  of  his  treatment.  He  composed  none  of  his  works  with  a 


purely  scientific  ;iiin.  He  thought  always  of  the  practical  result  to  be  attained,  and  his  selection  of 
material  and  his  choice  of  method  were  governed  by  that.  And  yet  we  must  recognize  the  fact  that 
this  aim  was  never  narrowing  in  its  effects.  I  le  took  a  broad  view  of  apologetics,  and  in  his  lofty 
conception  of  the  Christian  religion  he  believed  that  every  field  of  knowledge  might  be  laid  under 
tribute  to  it.  He  was  bold  enough  to  be  confident  that  history,  philosophy,  and  science  all  con- 
tribute to  our  understanding  and  appreciation  of  divine  truth;  and  so  history  and  philosophy  and 
science  were  studied  and  handled  by  him  freely  and  fearlessly.  He  did  not  feel  the  need  of 
distorting  truth  of  any  kind  because  it  might  work  injury  to  the  religion  which  he  professed.  On 
the  contrary,  he  had  a  sublime  faith  which  led  him  to  believe  that  all  truth  must  have  its  pla<  e 
and  its  mission,  and  that  the  cause  of  Christianity  will  be  benefited  by  its  discovery  and  diffusion. 
As  an  apologist,  therefore,  all  fields  of  knowledge  had  an  interest  for  him  ;  and  he  was  saved  that 
pettiness  of  mind  and  narrowness  of  outlook  which  are  sometimes  characteristic  of  those  who 
write  with  a  purely  practical  motive. 

§   2.      Catalogue  of  liis    \Vorks. 

There  is  no  absolutely  complete  edition  of  Euscbius'  extant  works.  The  only  one  which  can 
lay  claim  even  to  relative  completeness  is  that  of  Migne  :  Rusebii  Pamphili,  Ctcsarcfc  Palestine 
Episcc/'.i,  Opera  omnia  qua'  extant,  curls  variorum,  ncmpe :  lien  rid  Valesii,  Frandsd  Vigcri, 
Bernardi  Montfauconiiy  Card.  Angelo  Mail  edita  ;  collegit  et  denuo  rccognorit  J.  P.  Migne.  Par. 
1857.  6  vols  (torn.  XIX. -XXIV.  of  Migne's  Patrologia  Gncca).  This  edition  omits  the  works 
which  are  extant  only  in  Syriac  versions,  also  the  Topiea,  and  some  brief  but  important  Greek 
fragments  (among  them  the  epistles  to  Alexander  and  Euphration).  The  edition,  however,  is 
invaluable  and  cannot  be  dispensed  with.  References  to  it  (under  the  simple  title  Opera)  will 
be  given  below  in  connection  with  those  works  which  it  contains.  Many  of  Kusebius'  writings, 
especially  the  historical,  have  been  published  separately.  Such  editions  will  be  mentioned  in 
their  proper  place  in  the  Catalogue. 

More  or  less  incomplete  lists  of  our  author's  writings  are  given  by  Jerome  {De  rir.  ill. 
87)  ;  by  Nicephorus  Callistus  (//.  E.  VI.  37)  ;  by  Ebedjesu  (in  Assemani's  Bibl.  Orient.  III. 
p.  18  sq.)  ;  by  Photius  {Bibl.  9-13,  27,  39,  127)  ;  and  by  Suidas  (who  simply  copies  the  Creek 
version  of  Jerome).  Among  modern  works  all  the  lives  of  Eusebius  referred  to  in  the  previous 
chapter  give  more  or  less  extended  catalogues  of  his  writings.  In  addition  to  the  works  mentioned 
there,  valuable  lists  are  also  found  in  Lardner's  Credibility,  Part  II.  chap.  72,  and  especially  in 
Fabricius'  Bibl.  Gncca  (ed.  1714),  vol.  VI.  p.  30  sq. 

The  writings  of  Eusebius  that  are  known  to  us,  extant  and  non-extant,  may  be  classified  for 
convenience'  sake  under  the  following  heads  :  I.  Historical.  II.  Apologetic.  III.  Polemic. 
IV.  Dogmatic.  V.  Critical  and  Exegetical.  VI.  Biblical  Dictionaries.  VII.  Orations. 
VIII.  Epistles.  IX.  Spurious  or  doubtful  works.  The  classification  is  necessarily  somewhat 
artificial,  and  claims  to  be  neither  exhaustive  nor  exclusive.' 


Life  of  Pamphilus  (rj  TOV  Ilu/^iAou  /&ov  dvuypa^?/ ;  see  //.  E.  VI.  32).  Eusebius  himself 
refers  to  this  work  in  four  passages  {H.  E.  VI.  32,  VII.  32,  VIII.  13,  and  Mart.  Pal.  c.  n). 
In  the  last  he  informs  us  that  it  consisted  of  three  books.  The  work  is  mentioned  also  more  than 
once  by  Jerome  {De  rir.  ill.  81  ;  Ep.  ad  Alarcellam,  Migne's  ed.  Ep.  34  ;  Contra  Ruf.  I.  9),  who 
speaks  of  it  in  terms  of  praise,  and  in  the  last  passage  gives  a  brief  extract  from  the  third  book, 
which  is,  so  far  as  known,  the  only  extant  fragment  of  the  work.  The  date  of  its  composition  can 
be  fixed  within  comparatively  narrow  limits.  It  must  of  course  have  been  written  before  the  shorter 
recension  of  the  Martyrs  of  Palestine,  which  contains  a  reference  to  it  (on  its  relation  to  the 

1  In  the  preparation  of  the  following  Catalogue  of  Eusebius'  writings  Stein,  and  especially  Lightfoot,  have  been  found  most  helpful. 


longer  recension,  which  does  not  mention  it,  see  below,  p.  30),  and  also  before  the  History  (i.e. 
as  early  as  313  A.D.  (?),  see  below,  p.  45).  On  the  other  hand,  it  was  written  after  I'amphilus' 
death  (see  //.  E.  VII.  32,  25),  which  occurred  in  310. 

Martyrs  of  Palestine  (irepl  TWV  <ri'  HaXatcrrtV^  iJ.apTvprjfra.vTMv).  This  work  is  extant  in  two 
recensions,  a  longer  and  a  shorter.  The  longer  has  been  preserved  entire  only  in  a  Syriac  version, 
which  was  published,  with  English  translation  and  notes,  by  Cureton  in  1861.  A  fragment  of  the 
original  Greek  of  this  work  as  preserved  by  Simeon  Metaphrastes  had  previously  been  published 
by  Papebroch  in  the  Acta  Sanctorum  (June,  torn.  I.  p.  64  ;  reprinted  by  Fabricius,  f/ippo/yti/s, 
II.  p.  217),  but  had  been  erroneously  regarded  as  an  extract  from  Kusebius'  Life  of  Pamphilus. 
Cureton's  publication  of  the  Syriac  version  of  the  Martyrs  of  Palestine  showed  that  it  was  a  part 
of  the  original  of  that  work.  There  are  extant  also,  in  Latin,  the  Acts  of  St.  Procopius,  which  were 
published  by  Valesius  (in  his  edition  of  Kusebius'  Hist.  Eccles.  in  a  note  on  the  first  chapter  of 
the  Mart.  Pal.;  reprinted  by  Cureton,  Mart.  Pal.  p.  50  sq.).  Moreover,  according  to  Cureton, 
Assemani's  Acta,  SS.  Martyrum  Orient,  et  Occidentalism,  part  II.  p.  169  sq.  (Roma?,  1748) 
contains  another  Syriac  version  of  considerable  portions  of  this  same  work.  The  Syriac  version 
published  by  Cureton  was  made  within  less  than  a  century  after  the  composition  of  the  original 
work  (the  manuscript  of  it  dates  from  411  A.D.  ;  see  Cureton,  ib.,  preface,  p.  i.),  perhaps  within 
a  few  years  after  it,  and  there  is  every  reason  to  suppose  that  it  represents  that  original  with 
considerable  exactness.  That  Eusebius  himself  was  the  author  of  the  original  cannot  be  doubted. 
In  addition  to  this  longer  recension  there  is  extant  in  Creek  a  shorter  form  of  the  same  work 
which  is  found  attached  to  the  Ecclesiastical  History  in  most  MSS.  of  the  latter.  In  some  of 
them  it  is  placed  between  the  eighth  and  ninth  books,  in  others  at  the  close  of  the  tenth  book, 
while  one  MS.  inserts  it  in  the  middle  of  VIII.  13.  In  some  of  the  most  important  MSS.  it  is 
wanting  entirely,  as  likewise  in  the  translation  of  Rufinus,  and,  according  to  Lightfoot,  in  the 
Syriac  version  of  the  History.  Most  editions  of  Eusebius'  History  print  it  at  the  close  of  the 
eighth  book.  Migne  gives  it  separately  in  Opera,  II.  1457  sq.  In  the  present  volume  the 
translation  of  it  is  given  as  an  appendix  to  the  eighth  book,  on  p.  342  sq. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  shorter  form  is  younger  than  the  longer.  The  mention  of  the 
Life  of  Pamphilus  which  is  contained  in  the  shorter,  but  is  not  found  in  the  corresponding  passage 
of  the  longer  form  would  seem  to  indicate  that  the  former  was  a  remodeling  of  the  latter  rather 
than  the  latter  of  the  former  (see  below,  p.  30).  Moreover,  as  Cureton  and  Lightfoot  both 
point  out,  the  difference  between  the  two  works  both  in  substance  and  in  method  is  such  as  to 
make  it  clear  that  the  shorter  form  is  a  revised  abridgment  of  the  longer.  That  Eusebius  himself 
was  the  author  of  the  shorter  as  well  as  of  the  longer  form  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  not  only  in 
the  passages  common  to  both  recensions,  but  also  in  those  peculiar  to  the  shorter  one,  the  author 
speaks  in  the  same  person  and  as  an  eye-witness  of  many  of  the  events  which  he  records.  And 
still  further,  in  Chap.  1 1  he  speaks  of  having  himself  written  the  Life  of  Pamphilus  in  three  books, 
a  notice  which  is  wanting  in  the  longer  form  ami  therefore  must  emanate  from  the  hand  of  the 
author  of  the  shorter.  It  is  interesting  to  inquire  after  Eusebius'  motive  in  publishing  an  abridged 
edition  of  this  work.  Cureton  supposes  that  he  condensed  it  simply  for  the  purpose  of  inserting 
it  in  the  second  edition  of  his  History.  Lightfoot,  on  the  other  hand,  suggests  that  it  may  have 
formed  "  part  of  a  larger  work,  in  which  the  sufferings  of  the  martyrs  were  set  off  against  the 
deaths  of  the  persecutors,"  and  he  is  inclined  to  see  in  the  brief  appendix  to  the  eighth  book  of 
the  History  (translated  below  on  p.  340)  "a  fragment  of  the  second  part  of  the  treatise  of  which 
the  Martyrs  of  Palestine  in  the  shorter  recension  formed  the  first."  The  suggestion  is,  to  say  the 
least,  very  plausible.  If  it  be  true,  the  attachment  of  the  shorter  form  of  the  Martyrs  of  Palestine 
to  the  Ecclesiastical  History  was  probably  the  work,  not  of  Eusebius  himself,  but  of  some  copyist 
or  copyists,  and  the  disagreement  among  the  various  MSS.  as  to  its  position  in  the  History  is  more 
easily  explained  on  this  supposition  than  on  Cureton's  theory  that  it  was  attached  to  a  later  edition 
of  the  latter  work  by  Eusebius  himself. 


The  date  at  which  the  Martyrs  of  Pa  Is*  tine  was  composed  cannot  be  determined  with  cer- 
tainty. It  was  at  any  rate  not  published  until  after  the  first  nine  books  of  the  Ecclesiastical  History 
(i.e.  not  before  313,  see  below,  p.  45).  for  it  is  referred  to  as  a  projected  work  in  //.  K.  VIII. 
13.  7.  On  the  other  hand,  the  accounts  contained  in  the  longer  recension  bear  many  marks  of 
having  been  composed  on  the  spot,  while  the  impressions  left  by  the  martyrdoms  witnessed  by  the 
author  were  still  fresh  upon  him.  Moreover,  it  is  noticeable  that  in  connection  with  the  account 
of  Pamphilus'  martyrdom,  given  in  the  shorter  recension,  reference  is  made  to  the  Life  of 
Pamphilus  as  a  book  already  published,  while  in  the  corresponding  account  in  the  longer  recen- 
sion no  such  book  is  referred  to.  This  would  seem  to  indicate  that  the  Life  of  Pamphilus  was 
written  after  the  longer,  but  before  the  shorter  recension  of  the  ATartyrs.  lint  on  the  other  hand 
the  Life  was  written  before  the  Ecclesiastical  History  (see  above,  p.  29),  and  consequently  before 
the  publication  of  either  recension  of  the  Martyrs.  May  it  not  be  that  the  accounts  of  the  various 
martyrdoms  were  written,  at  least  some  of  them,  during  the  persecution,  but  that  they  were  not 
arranged,  completed,  and  published  until  313.  or  later?  If  this  be  admitted  we  may  suppose 
that  the  account  of  1'amphilus'  martyrdom  was  written  soon  after  his  death  and  before  the  J.ife 
was  begun.  When  it  was  later  embodied  with  the  oilier  accounts  in  the  one  work  On  (he  Martyrs 
of  Palestine  it  may  have  been  left  just  as  it  was,  and  it  may  not  have  occurred  to  the  author  to 
insert  a  reference  to  the  Life  of  J \tmph ilus  which  had  meanwhile  been  published.  lint  when  he- 
came  to  abridge  and  in  part  rewrite  for  a  new  edition  the  accounts  of  the  various  martyrdoms 
contained  in  the  work  On  Martyi's  he  would  quite  naturally  refer  the  reader  to  the  Life  for  fuller 

If  we  then  suppose  that  the  greater  part  of  the  longer  recension  of  the  ATartyrs  was  already 
complete  before  the  end  of  the  persecution,  it  is  natural  to  conclude  that  the  whole  work  was 
published  at  an  earl}'  date,  probably  as  soon  as  possible  after  the  first  edition  of  the  History. 
How  much  later  the  abridgment  was  made  we  cannot  tell.1 

The  differences  between  the  two  recensions  lie  chiefly  in  the  greater  fullness  of  detail  on  the 
part  of  the  longer  one.  The  arrangement  and  general  mode  of  treatment  is  the  same  in  both. 
They  contain  accounts  of  the  Martyrs  that  suffered  in  Palestine  during  the  years  303-310,  most 
of  whom  Kusebius  himself  saw. 

Collection  of  Ancient  Martyrdoms  (u^uiW  fjuiprrpiMv  rrrmywyr/).  This  work  is  mentioned  by 
Eusebius  in  his  //.  E.  IV.  15,  V.  prref.,  4,  21.  These  notices  indicate  that  it  was  not  an  original 

1  Since  the  above  section  was  written,  another  possibility  has 
suggested  itself  to  me.  As  remarked  below,  on  p.  45,  it  is  possible 
that  Kusebins  issued  a  second  edition  of  his  History  in  the  year  324 
or  325,  with  a  tenth  book  added,  and  that  he  inserted  at  that  time 
two  remarks  not  contained  in  the  first  edition  of  the  first  nine  books. 
It  is  possible,  therefore,  to  suppose  that  the  references  to  the  \'ita 
f'limphi'i,  as  an  already  published,  book,  found  in  //.  /•'..  VI.  32  and 
VII.  )2,  may  have  been  added  at  the  same  time.  Turning  t>  the 
latter  passage  we  find  our  author  saying,  "  It  would  be  no  small 
matter  to  show  what  sort  of  man  lie  [1'amphilus]  was,  and  whence 
he  came.  Hut  we  have  described  in  a  separate  work  devoted  to  him 
all  the  particulars  of  his  life,  and  of  the  school  which  he  established, 
and  the  trials  which  he  endured  in  many  confessions  during  the  per- 
secution, and  the  crown  of  martyrdom  with  which  lie  was  finally 
honored,  lint  of  all  who  were  there  he  was  the  most  admirable" 
(aAA'  OUTO?  n'tv  Tun-  TJ/Se  fl(u'/ia<7i,,jTaTO<;).  The  tiAAu,  but,  seems 
very  unnatural  after  the  paragraph  in  regard  to  the  work  which 
Eusebius  had  already  written.  In  fact,  to  give  the  word  its  proper 
adversative  force  after  what  precedes  is  quite  impossible,  and  it  is 
therefore  commonly  rendered  (as  in  the  translation  of  the  passage 
on  p.  321,  below)  simply  "indeed."  If  we  suppose  the  passage  in 
regard  to  the  Biography  of  Pamphilns  to  be  a  later  insertion,  the 
use  of  the  riAAi  becomes  quite  explicable.  "  It  would  l>e  no  small 
matter  to  show  what  sort  of  man  he  was  and  whence  he  came. 
lint  (this  much  I  can  say  here)  he  was  the  most  admirable  of  all 
who  were  there."  Certainly  the  reference  at  this  point  to  the  I'ltn 

l'tun/>/iili  thus  has  something  of  the  look  of  a  later  insertion.  In 
VI.  32,  the  reference  to  that  work  might  be  struck  out  without  in 
tlie  least  impairing  the  continuity  of  thought.  Still  further,  in  VIII. 
13,  where  the  /  'ita  is  mentioned,  although  the  majority  of  the  MSS. 
followed  by  most  of  the  modern  editions  have  the  past  tense  areypa- 
i^a/uer  "  we  have  written,"  three  of  the  best  MSS.  read  uruypttiio^ei- 
"we  .shall  write."  Might  not  this  confusion  have  arisen  from  the 
fact  that  Eusebius,  in  revising  the  History,  instend  of  rewriting  this 
whole  passage  simply  substituted  in  the  copy  which  he  had  before 
him  the  word  art"ypa^  for  the  earlier  avaypd^,  and  that 
some  copyist,  or  copyists,  finding  the  earlier  form  still  legible,  pre- 
ferred that  to  the  substituted  form,  thinking  the  latter  to  be  an  inser- 
tion by  some  unauthorized  person?  If  we  were  then  to  suppose  that 
the  I 'ita  ramphi'.i  was  written  after  the  first  edition  of  the  History, 
but  before  the  issue  of  the  complete  work  in  its  revised  form,  we 
should  place  its  composition  later  than  the  longer  recension  of  the 
Martyrs,  but  earlier  than  the  shorter  recension,  and  thus  explain 
quite  simply  the  lack  of  any  reference  to  the  /  'ita  in  the  former. 
Against  the  theory  stated  in  this  note  might  be  urged  the  serious 
objection  that  the  reference  to  the  Martyr's  of  Palestine  in  VI 1 1.  13 
is  allowed  to  remain  in  the  future  tense  even  in  the  revised  edition 
of  the  History,  a  fact  which  of  course  argues  against  the  change  of 
araypa>//o/iei'  to  a.Vfypa.'jia.iJ.ev  in  the  reference  to  the  I'itii  in  the 
same  chapter.  Indeed,  I  do  not  wish  to  be  understood  as  maintaining 
this  theory,  or  as  considering  it  more  probable  than  the  one  stated 
in  the  text.  I  suggest  it  simply  as  an  alternative  possibility. 


composition,  but  simply  a  compilation  ;  a  collection  of  extant  accounts  of  martyrdoms  which  had 
taken  place  before  Kusebius'  day.  The  work  is  no  longer  extant,  but  the  accounts  of  the  martyr- 
dom of  1'amphilus  and  others  at  Smyrna,  of  the  persecution  in  Lyons  and  Vienne,  and  of  the 
defense  of  Apollonius  in  Rome,  which  Kusebius  inserts  in  his  Ecclesiastical  History  (IV.  15,  V.  i, 
V.  21),  are  taken,  as  he  informs  us,  from  this  collection.  As  to  the  time  of  compilation,  we  can 
say  only  that  it  antedates  the  composition  of  the  earlier  books  of  the  History  (on  whose  date, 
see  below,  p.  45). 

Chronicle  (xpon/<oi  Kavoves).  Kusebius  refers  to  this  work  in  his  Church  History  (I.  i),  in 
his  Pnrpa  ratio  Erang.  X.  9,  and  at  the  beginning  of  his  Eclogce  prophetiar.  It  is  divided  into 
two  books,  the  first  of  which  consists  of  an  epitome  of  universal  history  drawn  from  various 
sources,  the  second  of  chronological  tables,  which  "  exhibit  in  parallel  columns  the  succession 
of  the  rulers  of  different  nations  in  such  a  way  that  the  reader  can  see  at  a  glance  with  whom  any 
given  monarch  was  contemporary."  The  tables  "  are  accompanied  by  notes,  marking  the  years 
of  some  of  the  more  remarkable  historical  events,  these  notes  also  constituting  an  epitome  of 
history."  Kusebius  was  not  the  first  Christian  writer  to  compose  a  work  on  universal  chronology. 
Julius  Africanus  had  published  a  similar  work  early  in  the  third  century,  and  from  that  Kusebius 
drew  his  model  and  a  large  part  of  the  material  for  his  own  work.  At  the  same  time  his  Chronicle 
is  more  than  a  simple  revision  of  Africanus'  work,  and  contains  the  result  of  much  independent 
investigation  on  his  own  part.  The  work  of  Africanus  is  no  longer  extant,  and  that  of  Kusebius 
was  likewise  lost  for  a  great  many  centuries,  being  superseded  by  a  revised  Latin  edition,  issued 
by  Jerome.  Jerome's  edition,  which  comprises  only  the  second  book  of  Kusebius'  Chronicle,  is 
a  translation  of  the  original  work,  enlarged  by  notices  taken  from  various  writers  concerning 
human  history,  and  containing  a  continuation  of  the  chronology  down  to  his  own  time.  This, 
together  with  numerous  Greek  fragments  preserved  by  various  ancient  writers,  constituted  our 
only  source  for  a  knowledge  of  the  original  work,  until  late  in  the  last  century  an  Armenian  trans- 
lation of  the  whole  work  was  discovered  and  published  in  two  volumes  by  J.  E.  Aucher  :  Venice, 
1818.  The  Armenian  translation  contains  a  great  many  errors  and  not  a  few  lacuna;,  but  it  is 
our  most  valuable  source  for  a  knowledge  of  the  original  work. 

The  aim  of  the  Chronicle  was,  above  all,  apologetic,  the  author  wishing  to  prove  by  means 
of  it  that  the  Jewish  religion,  of  which  the  Christian  was  the  legitimate  continuation,  was  older 
than  the  oldest  of  heathen  cults,  and  thus  deprive  pagan  opponents  of  their  taunt  of  novelty,  so 
commonly  hurled  against  Christianity.  As  early  as  the  second  century,  the  Christian  apologists 
had  emphasized  the  antiquity  of  Judaism  ;  but  Julius  Africanus  was  the  first  to  devote  to  the 
matter  scientific  study,  and  it  was  with  the  same  idea  that  Kusebius  followed  in  his  footsteps. 
The  Chronology,  in  spite  of  its  errors,  is  invaluable  for  the  light  it  throws  on  many  otherwise  dark 
periods  of  history,  and  for  the  numerous  extracts  it  contains  from  works  no  longer  extant. 

There  are  good  and  sufficient  reasons  (as  is  pointed  out  by  Salmon  in  his  article  in  Smith  and 
Wace's  Dictionary  of  Christian  Biography}  for  supposing  that  two  editions  of  the  Chronicle  were 
published  by  Kusebius.  Rut  two  of  these  reasons  need  be  stated  here  :  first,  the  chronology  of 
the  Armenian  version  differs  from  that  of  Jerome's  edition  in  many  important  particulars,  diver- 
gencies which  can  be  satisfactorily  accounted  for  only  on  the  supposition  of  a  difference  in  the 
sources  from  which  they  respectively  drew ;  secondly,  Jerome  states  directly  that  the  work  was 
brought  down  to  the  vicennalia  of  Constantine,  —  that  is,  to  the  year  325,  —  but  the  Chronicle  is 
referred  to  as  an  already  published  work  in  the  Ecloga  propheticce  (I.  i),  and  in  the  Pneparatio 
Evang.  (X.  9),  both  of  which  were  written  before  313.  We  may  conclude,  then,  that  a  first 
edition  of  the  work  was  published  during,  or  more  probably  before,  the  great  persecution,  and 
that  a  second  and  revised  edition  was  issued  probably  in  325,  or  soon  thereafter. 

Kor  further  particulars  in  regard  to  the  CJironiclc  see  especially  the  article  of  Salmon  already 
referred  to.  The  work  has  been  issued  separately  a  great  many  times.  We  may  refer  here  to 
the  edition  of  Scaliger,  which  was  published  in  1606  (zd  ed.  1658),  in  which  he  attempted 


to  restore  the  Creek  text  from  the  fragments  of  Syncellus  and  other  ancient  writers,  and  to  the 
new  edition  of  Mai,  which  was  printed  in  1833  in  his  Scriptontm  rtttrum  nova  collectio,  Tom. 
VIII.,  and  reprinted  by  Migne,  Kuscbii  Opera,  I.  99-59*.  The  best  and  most  recent  edition, 
however,  and  the  one  which  supersedes  all  earlier  editions,  is  that  of  Alfred  Schoene,  in  two 
volumes:  Berlin,  1875  and  1866. 

Ecclesiastical  History    (€KK\I/O-IUO-TIKT/   urropta).     For   a   discussion   of  this  work  see  below, 

p.  45  Sll- 

Life  of  Constantine  (us  TOV  ftiov  TOP  piKupiov  KajvoravTiVou  TOV  /SacriAews).      i'or  particulars   in 

regard  to  this  work,  see  the  prolegomena  of  Dr.  Richardson,  on  pp.  sq.,  of  this  volume. 


Against  Hierocles  (TT^O?  rous  v-tp  'ATroAAoji't'ov  TOV  Travels  'ItpoKAe'ov?  Xoyovs,  as  Photius  calls 
it  in  his  A/7'/.  39).  Hierocles  was  governor  of  Ittthynia  during  the  early  years  of  the  Diocletian 
persecution,  and  afterwards  governor  of  Kgypt.  In  both  places  he  treated  the  Christians  with 
great  severity,  carrying  out  the  edicts  of  the  emperors  to  the  fullest  extent,  and  even  making  use 
of  the  most  terrible  and  loathsome  forms  of  persecution  (see  Lactantius,  DC  Mort.  Pers.  16,  and 
Kusebius,  Mart.  Pal.  5,  Cureton's  ed.  p.  18).  Me  was  at  the  same  time  a  Neo- Platonic  philoso- 
pher, exceedingly  well  versed  in  the  Scriptures  and  doctrines  of  the  Christians.  In  a  work 
against  the  Christians  entitled  Ar'yos  c/u/Wb/YAys  -n-pos  TOV?  xpurriavou's,  he  brought  forward  many 
scriptural  difficulties  and  alleged  contradictions,  and  also  instituted  a  comparison  between  Christ 
and  Apollonius  of  Tyana,  with  the  intention  of  disparaging  the  former.  Kusebius  feels  called  upon 
to  answer  the  work,  but  confines  himself  entirely  to  that  part  of  it  which  concerned  Christ  and 
Apollonius,  leaving  to  some  future  time  a  refutation  of  the  remainder  of  the  work,  which  indeed, 
he  says,  as  a  mere  reproduction  of  the  arguments  of  Celsus,  had  been  already  virtually  answered 
by  Origen  (see  chap.  i).  Kusebius  admits  that  Apollonius  was  a  good  man,  but  refuses  to  con- 
cede that  he  was  anything  more,  or  that  he  can  be  compared  with  Christ.  lie  endeavors  to  show 
that  the  account  of  Apollonius  given  by  Philostratus  is  full  of  contradictions  and  does  not  rest 
upon  trustworthy  evidence.  The  tone  of  the  book  is  mild,  and  the  arguments  in  the  main  sound 
and  well  presented.  It  is  impossible  to  fix  the  date  of  the  work  with  any  degree  of  certainty. 
Valesius  assigns  it  to  the  later  years  of  the  persecution,  when  Kusebius  visited  Kgypt  ;  Stein  says 
that  it  may  have  been  written  about  312  or  313,  or  even  earlier  ;  while  Lightfoot  simply  remarks. 
"  It  was  probably  one  of  the  earliest  works  of  Kusebius."  There  is  no  ground  for  putting  it  at 
one  time  rather  than  another  except  the  intrinsic  probability  that  it  was  written  soon  after  the 
work  to  which  it  was  intended  to  be  a  reply.  In  fact,  had  a  number  of  years  elapsed  after  the 
publication  of  Hierocles'  attack,  Kusebius  would  doubtless,  if  writing  against  it  at  all,  have  given 
a  fuller  and  more  complete  refutation  of  it,  such  as  he  suggests  in  the  first  chapter  that  he  may 
yet  give.  The  work  of  Hierocles,  meanwhile,  must  have  been  written  at  any  rate  some  time 
before  the  end  of  the  persecution,  for  it  is  mentioned  in  Lactantius'  Div.  Inst.  V.  2. 

Eusebius' work  has  been  published  by  Caisford  :  Ruselni  Pamph.  contra  Jlicroclcm  et  Mar- 
cclliim  /i/>n,  Oxon.  1852  ;  and  also  in  various  editions  of  the  works  of  Philostratus.  Mignc,  Opera 
IV.  795  sq.,  reprints  it  from  (  Mearius'  edition  of  Philostratus'  works  (Lips.  1709). 

Against  Porphyry  (Kara  Unp^rpuiv).  Porphyry,  the  celebrated  Neo-Platonic  philosopher, 
regarded  by  the  early  Fathers  as  the  bitterest  and  most  dangerous  enemy  of  the  Church,  wrote 
toward  the  end  of  the  third  century  a  work  against  Christianity  in  fifteen  books,  which  was 
looked  upon  as  the  most  powerful  attack  that  had  ever  been  made,  and  which  called  forth  refu- 
tations from  some  of  the  greatest  Fathers  of  the  age  :  from  Methodius  of  Tyre,  Kusebius  of 
Crcsarea,  and  Apollinaris  of  Laodicea  ;  and  even  as  late  as  the  end  of  the  fourth  or  beginning 
of  the  fifth  century  the  historian  Philostorgius  thought  it  necessary  to  write  another  reply  to  it 
(see  his  //.  R.  X.  10).  Porphyry's  work  is  no  longer  extant,  but  the  fragments  of  it  which 
remain  show  us  that  it  was  both  learned  and  skillful.  He  made  much  of  the  alleged  contra- 



dictions  in  the  Gospel  records,  and  suggested  difficulties  which  arc  still  favorite  weapons  in 
the  hands  of  skeptics.  Like  the  work  of  Porphyry,  and  all  the  other  refutations  of  it,  the 
Apology  of  Kusebius  has  entirely  perished.  It  is  mentioned  by  Jerome  (<ie  rir.  ill.  Si  and 
Ep.  ad  Magnum,  §  3,  Migne's  ed.  Ep.  70),  by  Socrates  (//.  E.  III.  23),  and  by  I'hi- 
lostorgius  (//.  E.  VIII.  14).  There  is  some  dispute  as  to  the  number  of  books  it  contained. 
In  his  Ep.  ad  Magn.  Jerome  says  that  "Eusebius  et  Apollinaris  viginti  quinque,  et  triginta 
volumina  condiderunt,"  which  implies  that  it  was  composed  of  twenty-five  books  ;  while  in  his 
lie  vir.  ill.  81,  he  speaks  of  thirty  books,  of  which  he  had  seen  only  twenty.  Vallarsi  says, 
however,  that  all  his  MSS.  agree  in  reading  "twenty-five"  instead  of  "thirty"  in  the  latter 
passage,  so  that  it  would  seem  that  the  vulgar  text  is  incorrect. 

It  is  impossible  to  form  an  accurate  notion  of  the  nature  and  quality  of  Eusebius'  refutation. 
Socrates  speaks  of  it  in  terms  of  moderate  praise  ("which  [i.e.  the  work  of  Porphyry]  has  been 
ably  answered  by  Eusebius"),  and  Jerome  does  the  same  in  his  Ep.  ad  Magnum  ("Altcri 
[i.e.  Porphyry]  Methodius,  Eusebius,  et  Apollinaris  fortissime  responderunt ").  At  the  same 
time  the  fact  that  Apollinaris  and  others  still  thought  it  necessary  to  write  against  Porphyry 
would  seem  to  show  that  Eusebius'  refutation  was  not  entirely  satisfactory.  In  truth,  Jerome 
(Ep.  ad Pammachium  ct  Oceanian,  §  2,  Migne's  ed.  Ep.  84)  appears  to  rank  the  work  of  Apol- 
linaris above  that  of  Eusebius,  and  Philostorgius  expressly  states  that  the  former  far  surpassed  the 
latter  (em  voXv  ^yowoTxeVtov  'Ewe/3to>  KUT'  avrov) .  The  date  of  Eusebius'  work  cannot  be 
determined.  The  fact  that  he  never  refers  to  it,  although  he  mentions  the  work  of  Porphyry  a 
number  of  times,  has  been  urged  by  Valesius  and  others  as  proof  that  he  did  not  write  it  until 
after  325  A.D.  ;  but  it  is  quite  possible  to  explain  his  silence,  as  Lardner  does,  by  supposing  that  his 
work  was  written  in  his  earlier  years,  and  that  afterward  he  felt  its  inferiority  and  did  not  care  to 
mention  it.  It  seems,  in  fact,  not  unlikely  that  he  wrote  it  as  early,  or  even  earlier  than  his  work 
against  Hierocles,  at  any  rate  before  his  attention  was  occupied  with  the  Arian  controversy  and 
questions  connected  with  it. 

On  the  Numerous  Progeny  of  the  Ancients  (-n-epl  rr>  TWT/  TraXacwv  av8pwv  TroAwcuSius).  This 
work  is  mentioned  by  Eusebius  in  his  Pracp.  Evang.  VII.  8.  20  (Migne,  Opera,  III.  525),  but 
by  no  one  else,  unless  it  be  the  book  to  which  Basil  refers  in  his  De  Spir.  Sane  to,  29,  as 
Difficulties  respecting  the  Polygamy  of  the  Ancients.  The  work  is  no  longer  extant,  but  we  can 
gather  from  the  connection  in  which  it  is  mentioned  in  the  Pncparatio,  that  it  aimed  at  accouia 
ing  for  the  polygamy  of  the  Patriarchs  and  reconciling  it  with  the  ascetic  ideal  of  the  Christian  life 
which  prevailed  in  the  Church  of  Eusebius'  lifetime.  It  would  therefore  seem  to  have  been 
written  with  an  apologetic  purpose. 

PrcRparatio  Evangchca  (Trpoirapao-Kevr/  ewyyeAi*r/)  and  Demonstratio  Evangelica  ('EmyyeAiK?) 
u7roSei£is).  These  two  treatises  together  constitute  Eusebius'  greatest  apologetic  work.  The 
former  is  directed  against  heathen,  and  aims  to  show  that  the  Christians  are  justified  in  accepting 
the  sacred  books  of  the  Hebrews  and  in  rejecting  the  religion  and  philosophy  of  the  Creeks. 
The  latter  endeavors  to  prove  from  the  sacred  books  of  the  Hebrews  themselves  that  the  Chris- 
tians do  right  in  going  beyond  the  Jews,  in  accepting  Jesus  as  their  Messiah,  and  in  adopting 
another  mode  of  life.  The  former  is  therefore  in  a  way  a  preparation  for  the  latter,  and  the  two 
together  constitute  a  defense  of  Christianity  against  all  the  world,  Jews  as  well  as  heathen.  In 
grandeur  of  conception,  in  comprehensiveness  of  treatment,  and  in  breadth  of  learning,  this 
apology  undoubtedly  surpasses  all  other  apologetic  works  of  antiquity.  Lightfoot  justly  says, 
"  This  great  apologetic  work  exhibits  the  same  merits  and  defects  which  we  find  elsewhere  in 
Eusebius.  There  is  the  same  greatness  of  conception  marred  by  the  same  inadequacy  of  execu- 
tion, the  same  profusion  of  learning  combined  with  the  same  inability  to  control  his  materials, 
which  we  have  seen  in  his  History.  The  divisions  are  not  kept  distinct ;  the  topics  start  up 
unexpectedly  and  out  of  season.  But  with  all  its  faults  this  is  probably  the  most  important 
apologetic  work  of  the  early  Church.  It  necessarily  lacks  the  historical  interest  of  the  apologetic 

VOL.    I. 



writings  of  the  second  century  ;  it  falls  far  short  of  the  thoughtfulness  and  penetration  which 
give  a  permanent  value  to  Origen's  treatise  against  Celsus  as  a  defense  of  the  faith  ;  it  lags 
behind  the  Latin  apologists  in  rhetorical  vigor  and  expression.  I'.ut  the  forcible  and  true 
conceptions  which  it  exhibits  from  time  to  time,  more  especially  bearing  on  the  theme  which 
may  be  briefly  designated  'God  in  history,'  arrest  our  attention  now,  and  must  have  impressed 
his  contemporaries  still  more  strongly;  while  in  learning  and  comprehensiveness  it  is  without  a 
rival."  The  wide  acquaintance  with  classical  literature  exhibited  by  Kusebius  in  the  Pncparatio 
is  very  remarkable.  Many  writers  are  referred  to  whose  names  arc  known  to  us  from  no  other 
source,  and  many  extracts  are  given  which  constitute  our  only  fragments  of  works  otherwise 
totally  lost.  The  Pncparatio  thus  does  for  classical  much  what  the  History  does  for  Christian 

A  very  satisfactory  summary  of  the  contents  of  the  Prccpa  ratio  is  given  at  the  beginning  of 
the  fifteenth  book.  In  the  first,  second,  and  third  books,  the  author  exposes  the  absurdities  of 
heathen  mythology,  and  attacks  the  allegorical  theology  of  the  Neo-Platonists  ;  in  the  fourth  and 
fifth  books  he  discusses  the  heathen  oracles  ;  in  the  sixth  he  refutes  the  doctrine  of  fate  ;  in 
the  seventh  he  passes  over  to  the  Hebrews,  devoting  the  next  seven  books  to  an  exposition  of 
the  excellence  of  their  system,  and  to  a  demonstration  of  the  proposition  that  Moses  and  the 
prophets  lived  before  the  greatest  Greek  writers,  and  that  the  latter  drew  their  knowledge  from 
the  former  ;  in  the  fourteenth  and  fifteenth  books  he  exposgs  the  contradictions  among  Creek 
philosophers  and  the  vital  errors  in  their  systems,  especially  in  that  of  the  Peripatetics.  The 
Pne  pa  ratio  is  complete  in  fifteen  books,  all  of  which  are  still  extant. 

The  Demonstrate  consisted  originally  of  twenty  books  (see  Jerome's  dc  vir.  ill.  Hi,  and 
I'hotius'  Bil'I.  10).  Of  these  only  ten  are  extant,  and  even  in  the  time  of  Nicephorus  Callistus 
no  more  were  known,  for  he  gives  the  number  of  the  books  as  ten  (PL  E.  VI.  37).  There 
exists  also  a  fragment  of  the  fifteenth  book,  which  was  discovered  and  printed  by  Mai  (Script, 
ret.  nora  coll.  I.  2,  p.  173).  In  the  first  book,  which  is  introductory,  Eusebius  shows  why  the 
Christians  pursue  a  mode  of  life  different  from  that  of  the  Jews,  drawing  a  distinction  between 
Hebraism,  the  religion  of  all  pious  men  from  the  beginning,  and  Judaism,  the  special  system  of 
the  |ews,  and  pointing  out  that  Christianity  is  a  continuation  of  the  former,  but  a  rejection  of 
the  latter,  which  as  temporary  has  passed  away.  In  the  second  book  he  shows  that  the  calling 
of  the  Gentiles  and  the  repudiation  of  the  Jews  are  foretold  in  Scripture.  In  books  three  to  nine 
he  discusses  the  humanity,  divinity,  incarnation,  and  earthly  life  of  the  Saviour,  showing  that  all 
were  revealed  in  the  prophets.  In  the  remainder  of  the  work  we  may  assume  that  the  same 
general  plan  was  followed,  and  that  Christ's  death,  resurrection,  and  ascension,  and  the  spread  of 
his  Church,  were  the  subjects  discussed  in  this  as  in  nearly  all  works  of  the  kind. 

There  is  much  dispute  as  to  the  date  of  these  two  works.  Stroth  and  Cave  place  them  after  the 
( ]ouncil  of  Nioca,  while  Valesius,  Lightfoot,  and  others,  assign  them  to  the  ante-Nicene  period.  In 
two  passages  in  the  History  Kusebius  has  been  commonly  supposed  to  refer  to  the  Demons/ratio 
(II.  R.  I.  2  and  6),  but  it  is  probable  that  the  first,  and  quite  likely  the  second  also,  refers  to 
the  I'.clo^e  Pro  ph.  We  can,  therefore,  base  no  argument  upon  those  passages.  I>ut  in  Pnrp. 
Kvan«.  XII.  10  {Opera,  III.  969)  there  is  a  reference  to  the  persecution,  which  seems  clearly 
to  imply  that  it  was  still  continuing;  and  in  the  Demonstratio  (III.  5  and  IV.  6;  Opera,  IV. 
213  and  307),  which  was  written  after  the  Pncparatio,  are  still  more  distinct  indications  of  the 
continuance  of  the  persecution.  On  the  other  hand,  in  V.  3  and  VI.  20  ( Opera,  IV.  364  and 
474)  there  are  passages  which  imply  that  the  persecution  has  come  to  an  end.  It  seems  neces- 
sary then  to  conclude,  with  Lightfoot,  that  the  Demonstrate  was  begun  during  the  persecution, 
but  not  completed  until  peace  had  been  established.  The  Pnrparatio,  which  was  completed 
before  the  Demonstrate  was  begun  (see  the  protvminni  to  the  latter),  must  have  been  finished 
during  the  persecution.  It  contains  in  X.  9  (Opera,  III.  807)  a  reference  to  the  Chronicle  as  an 
already  published  work  (see  above,  p.  31  ). 


The  Praparatio  and  Demonstratio  are  found  in  Migne's  edition  of  the  Opera,  III.  and  IV. 
9  sq.  A  more  recent  text  is  that  of  Dindorf  in  Teubner's  series,  1867.  The  Pneparatio  lias  been 
published  separately  by  Heinichen,  2  vols.,  Lips.  1842,  and  by  Gaisford,  4  vols.,  Oxon.  1843. 
The  latter  contains  a  full  critical  apparatus  with  Latin  translation  and  notes,  and  is  the  most 
useful  edition  which  we  have.  Seguicr  in  1846  published  a  French  translation  with  notes.  The 
latter  are  printed  in  Latin  in  Migne's  edition  of  the  Opera,  III.  1457  sq.  The  French  translation 
I  have  not  seen. 

The  Dcmonstratio  was  also  published  by  Gaisford  in  2  vols.,  Oxon.  1852,  with  critical  appa- 
ratus and  Latin  translation.  Hsenell  has  made  the  two  works  the  subject  of  a  monograph  entitled 
DC  Euscbio  Casaricnsi  religionis  Christiante  Dcfcnsore  (Gotlingre,  1843)  which  I  know  only 
from  the  mention  of  it  by  Stein  and  Lightfoot. 

Praparatio  Ecdcsiastica  ('EKKAT/O-UIOTIKIJ  UpoTrapaa-Kev^},  and  Demonstratio  Ecclesiastica 
('EKK\ri<naa-TtKr)'A.Tr6Sugi<i).  These  two  works  are  no  longer  extant.  We  know  of  the  former  only 
from  Photius'  reference  to  it  in  Bill,  11,  of  the  latter  from  his  mention  of  it  in  Bibl.  12. 

Lightfoot  says  that  the  latter  is  referred  to  also  in  the  Jus  Grccco-Romanum  (lib.  IV.  p.  295  ; 
ed.  Leunclav.).  We  know  nothing  about  the  works  (except  that  the  first  according  to  Photius 
contained  extracts),  and  should  be  tempted  to  think  them  identical  with  the  Pneparatio  and 
Demonstratio  Evang.  were  it  not  that  Photius  expressly  mentions  the  two  latter  in  another  part 
of  his  catalogue  (Bibl.  10).  Lightfoot  supposes  that  the  two  lost  works  did  for  the  society  what 
the  Pnep.  and  Dem.  Evang.  do  for  the  doctrines  of  which  the  society  is  the  depositary,  and  he 
suggests  that  those  portions  of  the  Thcophania  (Book  IV.)  which  relate  to  the  foundation  of  the 
Church  may  have  been  adopted  from  the  Dem.  Ecclesiastica,  as  other  portions  of  the  work  (Book 
V.)  are  adopted  from  the  Dem.  Evang. 

If  there  is  a  reference  in  the  Pnrp.  Evang.  I.  3  (Opera,  III.  33)  to  the  Demonstratio  Ecc/es., 
as  Lightfoot  thinks  there  may  be,  and  as  is  quite  possible,  the  latter  work,  and  consequently  in 
all  probability  the  Prcep.  Eccles.  also,  must  have  been  written  before  313  A.D. 

Two  Books  of  Objection  and  Defense  ('EAeyXou  Kal  'ATroAoyius  Aoyoi  8w>).  These  are  no 
longer  extant,  but  are  mentioned  by  Photius  in  his  Bibl.  13.  We  gather  from  Photius'  language 
that  two  editions  of  the  work  were  extant  in  his  time.  The  books,  as  Photius  clearly  indicates, 
contained  an  apology  for  Christianity  against  the  attacks  of  the  heathen,  and  not,  as  Cave  supposed^ 
a  defense  of  the  author  against  the  charge  of  Arianism.  The  tract  mentioned  by  Gelasius  of 
Cyzicus  (see  below,  p.  64)  is  therefore  not  to  be  identified  with  this  work,  as  Cave  imagined 
that  it  might  be. 

Theophania  or  Divine  Manifestation  (0«><£avau).  A  Syriac  version  of  this  work  is  extant  in 
the  same  MS.  which  contains  the  Martyrs  of  Palestine,  and  was  first  published  by  Lee  in  1842. 
In  1843  the  same  editor  issued  an  English  translation  with  notes  and  extended  prolegomena 
(Cambridge,  i  vol.).  The  original  work  is  no  longer  extant  in  its  entirety,  but  numerous  Greek 
fragments  were  collected  and  published  by  Mai  in  1831  and  1833  (Script,  vet.  nov.  coll.  I. 
and  VIII.) ,  and  again  with  additions  in  1847  (Bibl.  Nova  Patrum,  IV.  no  and  310;  reprinted 
by  Migne,  Opera,  VI.  607-690.  Migne  does  not  give  the  Syriac  version).  The  manuscript 
which  contains  the  Syriac  version  was  written  in  411,  and  Lee  thinks  that  the  translation  itself 
may  have  been  made  even  during  the  lifetime  of  Eusebius.  At  any  rate  it  is  very  old  and,  so 
far  as  it  is  possible  to  judge,  seems  to  have  reproduced  the  sense  of  the  original  with  comparative 
accuracy.  The  subject  of  the  work  is  the  manifestation  of  God  in  the  incarnation  of  the  Word. 
It  aims  to  give,  with  an  apologetic  purpose,  a  brief  exposition  of  the  divine  authority  and  influ- 
ence of  Christianity.  It  is  divided  into  five  books  which  handle  successively  the  subject  and 
the  recipients  of  the  revelation,  that  is,  the  Logos  on  the  one  hand,  and  man  on  the  other;  the 
necessity  of  the  revelation ;  the  proof  of  it  drawn  from  its  effects ;  the  proof  of  it  drawn  from 
its  fulfillment  of  prophecy  ;  finally,  the  common  objections  brought  by  the  heathen  against  Christ's 
character  and  wonderful  works.  Lee  says  of  the  work:  "As  a  brief  exposition  of  Christianity, 

D  2 


particularly  of  its  Divine  authority,  and  amazing  influence,  it  has  perhaps  never  been  surpassed." 
"  When  we  consider  the  very  extensive  range  of  inquiry  occupied  by  our  author,  the  great  variety 
both  of  argument  and  information  which  it  contains,  and  the  small  space  which  it  occupies;  we 
cannot,  1  think,  avoid  coming  to  the  conclusion,  that  it  is  a  very  extraordinary  work,  and  one 
which  is  as  suitable  to  our  own  times  as  it  was  to  those  for  which  it  was  written.  Its  chief 
excellency  is,  that  it  is  argumentative,  and  that  its  arguments  are  well  grounded,  and  logically 

The  71ieophania  contains  much  that  is  found  also  in  other  works  of  Kusebius.  Large  portions 
of  the  first,  second,  and  third  books  are  contained  in  the  O ratio  i/c  Laudilnis  Conslantini,  nearly 
the  whole  of  the  fifth  book  is  given  in  the  Dem.  Evaiig.,  while  many  passages  occur  in  the  J'nep. 
Eva  fig. 

These  coincidences  assist  us  in  determining  the  date  of  the  work.  That  it  was  written  after 
persecution  had  ceased  and  peace  was  restored  to  the  Church,  is  clear  from  II.  76,  III.  20,  79, 
V.  52.  Lee  decided  that  it  was  composed  very  soon  after  the  close  of  the  Diocletian  persecution, 
but  Lightfoot  has  shown  conclusively  (p.  333)  from  the  nature  of  the  parallels  between  it  and  other 
writings  of  Kusebius,  that  it  must  have  been  written  toward  the  end  of  his  life,  certainly  later  than 
the  De  Laud.  Const.  (335  A.U.),  and  indeed  it  is  not  improbable  that  it  remained  unfinished  at 
the  time  of  his  death. 


Defense  of  Origen  ('ATroAoyta  v-n-lp  'fiptyeVousj.  This  was  the  joint  work  of  Euscbius  and 
Pamphilus,  as  is  distinctly  stated  by  Euscbius  himself  in  his  //.  E.  VI.  33,  by  Socrates,  II.E.\\\.  7,  by 
the  anonymous  collector  of  the  Sy nodical  Epistles  (Ep.  198),  and  by  Photius,  />//•/.  1 1  <S.  The  last 
writer  informs  us  that  the  work  consisted  of  six  books,  the  first  five  of  which  were  written  by  Kuse- 
bius and  Pamphilus  while  the  latter  was  in  prison,  the  last  book  being  added  by  the  former  after 
Pamphilus'  death  (see  above,  p.  9).  There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  the  statement  of  Photius,  and  we 
may  therefore  assign  the  first  five  books  to  the  years  307-309,  and  assume  that  the  sixth  was  written 
soon  afterward.  The  Defense  has  perished,  with  the  exception  of  the  first  book,  which  was 
translated  by  Rufinus  (Ri/fin.  ad  Ilicron.  I.  5 82),  and  is  still  extant  in  his  Latin  version.  Rufinus 
ascribed  this  book  expressly  to  Pamphilus,  and  Pamphilus'  name  alone  appears  in  the  translation. 
Jerome  (Contra  Ri/f.  I.  8;  II.  15,  23;  III.  12)  maintains  that  the  whole  work  was  written  by 
Kusebius,  not  by  Pamphilus,  and  accuses  Rufinus  of  having  deliberately  substituted  the  name  of 
the  martyr  Pamphilus  for  that  of  the  Ariani/ing  Kusebius  in  his  translation  of  the  work,  in  order 
to  secure  more  favorable  acceptance  for  the  teachings  of  Origen.  Jerome's  unfairness  and 
dishonesty  in  this  matter  have  been  pointed  out  by  Lightfoot  (p.  340).  In  spite  of  his  endeavor 
to  saddle  the  whole  work  upon  Kusebius,  it  is  certain  that  Pamphilus  was  a  joint  author  of  it,  and 
it  is  quite  probable  that  Rufinus  was  true  to  his  original  in  ascribing  to  Pamphilus  all  the  explan- 
ations which  introduce  and  connect  the  extracts  from  Origen,  which  latter  constitute  the  greater 
part  of  the  book.  Kusebius  may  have  done  most  of  his  work  in  connection  with  the  later  books. 

The  work  was  intended  as  a  defense  of  Origen  against  the  attacks  of  his  opponents  (see 
Eusebius'  //.  E.  VI.  33,  and  the  Preface  to  the  Defense  itself).  According  to  Socrates  (//.  E. 
VI.  13),  Methodius,  Eustathius,  Apollinaris,  and  Theophilus  all  wrote  against  Origen.  Of  these 
only  Methodius  had  written  before  the  composition  of  the  Defense,  and  he  was  expressly  at- 
tacked in  the  sixth  book  of  that  work,  according  to  Jerome  (Contra  Rnf.  I.  n).  The  wide 
opposition  aroused  against  Origen  was  chiefly  in  consequence  not  of  his  personal  character,  but 
of  his  theological  views.  The  Apology,  therefore,  seems  to  have  been  devoted  in  the  main  to 
a  defense  of  those  views  over  against  the  attacks  of  the  men  that  held  and  taught  opposite 
opinions,  and  may  thus  be  regarded  as  in  some  sense  a  regular  polemic.  The  extant  book  is 
devoted  principally  to  a  discussion  of  Origcn's  views  on  the  Trinity  and  the  Incarnation.  It  is 
not  printed  in  Migne's  edition  of  Eusebius'  Opera,  but  is  published  in  the  various  editions  of 

Till';    LIKK  AND    WRITINGS    OK-   KUSKHIUS.  37 

Origen's  works  (in  Lommat/sch's  edition,  XXIV.  289-412).  For  further  particulars  in  regard 
to  the  work,  see  Delarue's  introduction  to  it  (Lommatzsch,  XXIV.  263  sq.),  and  Lightfoot's  article 
on  Eusebius,  pp.  340  and  341. 

Against  Marcellus,  Bishop  of  Ancyra  (Kara  MupxeAAou  rov  'AyKijpus  eTmrKoVou).  The  occasion 
of  this  work  has  been  already  described  (see  p.  25),  and  is  explained  by  Eusebius  himself  in 
Hook  II.  chap.  4.  The  work  must  have  been  written  soon  after  the  Council  at  which  Marcellus 
was  condemned.  It  aims  simply  to  expose  his  errors,  exegetical  as  well  as  theological.  The 
work  consists  of  two  books,  and  is  still  extant  ( Opera,  VI.  707-824). 

On  the  Theology  of  the  Church,  a  Refutation  of  Marcellus  (oi  TT^O?  MupKeAAoi/  eAey^ot  Trcpi  TT/S 
e'KKAr/triuo-TiK^s  0eoAoy<.us ) .  The  occasion  of  this  work  is  stated  in  the  first  chapter.  In  the 
previous  work  Eusebius  had  aimed  merely  to  expose  the  opinions  of  Marcellus,  but  in  this  he 
devotes  himself  to  their  refutation,  fearing  that  some  might  be  led  astray  by  their  length  and 
plausibility.  The  work,  which  consists  of  three  books,  is  still  extant,  and  is  given  by  Migne  in 
the  Opera,  VI.  825-1046.  Both  it  and  the  preceding  are  published  with  the  Contra  Jlicroclcm 
in  Gaisford's  Euseb.  Panipli.  contra  Hieroclein  ct  Afarcellum,  Oxon.  1852.  Zalm  has  written 
a  valuable  monograph  entitled  Marcellus  von  Ancyra  (Gotha,  1867). 

Against  the  Manichcans.  Kpiphanius  (liter.  LXVI.  21)  mentions,  among  other  refutations 
of  the  Manicheans,  one  by  our  Eusebius.  The  work  is  referred  to  nowhere  else,  and  it  is  possible- 
thai  Epiphanius  was  mistaken  in  his  reference,  or  that  the  refutation  he  has  in  mind  formed  only 
a  part  of  some  other  work,  but  we  are  hardly  justified  in  asserting,  as  Lightfoot  does,  that  the 
work  cannot  have  existed. 


Genera!  Elementary  Introduction  ('II  KadoXov  (rrot^ttojS,/?  caraywy?/).  This  work  consisted 
of  ten  books,  as  we  learn  from  a  reference  to  it  in  the  Eclogue  Prophetic^-,  IV.  35.  It  was 
apparently  a  general  introduction  to  the  study  of  theology,  and  covered  a  great  variety  of 
subjects.  Five  brief  fragments  have  been  preserved,  all  of  them  apparently  from  the  first  book, 
which  must  have  dealt  largely  with  general  principles  of  ethics.  The  fragments  were  published 
by  Mai  {Bibl.  Nova  Patnun,  IV.  316),  and  are  reprinted  by  Migne  (Opera,  IV.  1271  sq.).  In 
addition  to  these  fragments,  the  sixth,  seventh,  eighth,  and  ninth  books  of  the  work  are  extant 
under  the  title : 

Prophetical  Extracts  ( IIpo^r/TtKui  'EK/Xoyut').  Although  this  formed  a  part  of  the  larger 
work,  it  is  complete  in  itself,  and  circulated  independently  of  the  rest  of  the  Introduction. 
It  contains  extracts  of  prophetical  passages  from  the  Old  Testament  relating  to  the  person  and 
work  of  Christ,  accompanied  by  explanatory  notes.  It  is  divided  into  four  books,  the  first 
containing  extracts  from  the  historical  Scriptures,  the  second  from  the  I'salms,  the  third  from 
the  other  poetical  books  and  from  the  prophets,  the  fourth  from  Isaiah  alone.  The  personality 
of  the  Logos  is  the  main  topic  of  the  work,  which  is  thus  essentially  dogmatic,  rather  than 
apologetic,  as  it  might  at  first  glance  seem  to  be.  It  was  composed  during  the  persecution, 
which  is  clearly  referred  to  in  Hook  I.  chap.  8  as  still  raging;  it  must  have  been  written  there- 
fore between  303  and  313.  The  date  of  these  books,  of  course,  fixes  the  date  of  the  General 
Introduction,  of  which  they  formed  a  part.  The  Eclogic  are  referred  to  in  the  History,  I.  2.  On 
the  other  hand,  they  mention  the  Chronicle  as  a  work  already  written  (I.  i  :  Opera,  p.  1023)  ; 
a  reference  which  goes  to  prove  that  there  were  two  editions  of  the  Chronicle  (see  above,  p.  31). 
The  four  books  of  the  Prophetical  Extracts  were  first  published  by  Gaisford  in  1842  (Oxford) 
from  a  Vienna  MS.  The  MS.  is  mutilated  in  many  places,  and  the  beginning,  including  the  title 
of  the  work,  is  wanting.  Migne  has  reprinted  Gaisford's  edition  in  the  Opera,  IV.  1017  sq. 

On  the  Paschal  Festival  (-rrepl  T^S  roD  Wo-^a  Idprr/?).  This  work,  as  Eusebius  informs  us  in 
his  Vita  Const.  IV.  34,  was  addressed  to  the  Emperor  Constantine,  who  commends  it  very  highly 
in  an  epistle  to  Eusebius  preserved  in  the  Vita  Const.  IV.  35.  From  this  epistle  we  learn,  more- 


over,  that  the  work  had  been  translated  into  Latin.  It  is  no  longer  extant  in  its  entirety,  but 
a  considerable  fragment  of  it  was  discovered  by  Mai  in  Nicetas'  Catena  on  Luke,  and  pub- 
lished by  him  in  his  Hibl.Nora  Patrinn,  IV.  p.  208  sq.  The  extant  portion  of  it  contains  twelve 
chapters,  devoted  partly  to  a  discussion  of  the  nature1  of  the  Passover  and  its  typical  significance, 
partly  to  an  account  of  the  settlement  of  the  paschal  question  at  the  Council  of  Nicsea,  and  partly 
to  an  argument  against  the  necessity  of  celebrating  the  paschal  feast  at  the  time  of  the  Jewish  Pass- 
over, based  on  the  ground  that  Christ  himself  did  not  keep  the  Passover  on  the  same  day  as  the  Jews. 
Jerome,  although  he  does  not  mention  this  work  in  his  catalogue  of  Kusebius'  writings  (tie  vir. 
ill.  Si),  elsewhere  (/'/>.  61)  states  that  Kusebius  composed  a  paschal  canon  with  a  cycle  of  nine- 
teen years.  This  cycle  may  have  been  published  (as  Lightfoot  remarks)  as  a  part  of  the  writing 
under  discussion.  The  date  of  the  work  cannot  be  determined  with  exactness.  It  was  written 
after  the  Council  of  Nicaja,  and,  as  would  seem  from  the  connection  in  which  it  is  mentioned  in 
the  I'ita  Constantini,  before  the  Kmperor's  tricennalia  (335  A.D.),  but  not  very  long  before. 
The  extant  fragment,  as  published  by  Mai,  is  reprinted  by  Migne  in  the  Opera,  VI.  693-706. 


Biblical  Texts.  We  learn  from  Jerome  (Pr«'f.  in  librinn  Paralip?)  that  Kusebius  and 
Pamphilus  published  a  number  of  copies  of  Origen's  edition  of  the  LXX.,  that  is,  of  the  fifth 
column  of  the  Hexapla.  A  colophon  found  in  a  Vatican  MS.,  and  given  in  fac-simile  in  Migne's 
Opera,  IV.  875,  contains  the  following  account  of  their  labors  (the  translation  is  Lightfoot's)  :  "  It 
was  transcribed  from  the  editions  of  the  Hexapla,  and  was  corrected  from  the  Tetrapla  of  Origen 
himself,  which  also  had  been  corrected  and  furnished  with  scholia  in  his  own  handwriting ; 
whence  I,  Kusebius,  added  the  scholia,  Pamphilus  and  Kusebius  corrected  [this  copy]." 
Compare  also  Field's  Hexapla,  I.  p.  xcix. 

Taylor,  in  the  Dictionary  of  Christian  Biography,  III.  p.  21,  says:  "The  whole  work  [i.e. 
the  Hexapla]  was  too  massive  for  multiplication ;  but  many  copies  of  its  fifth  column  alone 
were  issued  from  Cresarea  under  the  direction  of  Pamphilus  the  martyr  and  Kusebius,  and 
this  recension  of  the  LXX.  came  into  common  use.  Some  of  the  copies  issued  contained  also 
marginal  scholia,  which  gave  inter  alia  a  selection  of  readings  from  the  remaining  versions  in  the 
Hexapla.  The  oldest  extant  MS.  of  this  recension  is  the  Leiden  Codex  Sarravianus  of  the  fourth 
or  fifth  century."  These  editions  of  the  LXX.  must  have  been  issued  before  the  year  309,  when 
Pamphilus  suffered  martyrdom,  and  in  all  probability  before  307,  when  he  was  imprisoned  (see 
Lardner's  Credibility,  Part  II.  chap.  72. 

In  later  years  we  find  Kusebius  again  engaged  in  the  publication  of  copies  of  the  Scriptures. 
According  to  the  Vita  Const.  IV.  36,  37,  the  Kmperor  wrote  to  Kusebius,  asking  him  to  prepare 
fifty  sumptuous  copies  of  the  Scriptures  for  use  in  his  new  Constantinopolitan  churches.  The 
commission  was  carefully  executed,  and  the  MSS.  prepared  at  great  cost.  It  has  been  thought 
that  among  our  extant  MSS.  may  be  some  of  these  copies  which  were  produced  under  Kusebius' 
supervision,  but  this  is  extremely  improbable  (see  Lightfoot,  p.  334). 

Ten  Evangelical  Canons,  with  t/ie  Letter  to  Carpianus  prefixed  (/cuvwes  Se'/ca  ;  Ca nones  deccm 
harmoniic  erangclion/m  prccmissa  ad  Carpianum  epistola}.  Ammonius  of  Alexandria  early  in 
the  third  century  had  constructed  a  harmony  of  the  Gospels,  in  which,  taking  Matthew  as  the 
standard,  he  placed  alongside  of  that  Gospel  the  parallel  passages  from  the  three  others. 
Kusebius'  work  was  suggested  by  this  Harmony,  as  he  tells  us  in  his  epistle  to  Carpianus. 
An  inconvenient  feature  of  Ammonius'  work  was  that  only  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  could 
be  read  continuously,  the  sequence  of  the  other  Gospels  being  broken  in  order  to  bring 
their  parallel  sections  into  the  order  followed  by  Matthew.  Kusebius,  desiring  to  remedy  this 
defect,  constructed  his  work  on  a  different  principle.  He  made  a  table  of  ten  canons,  each 
containing  a  list  of  passages  as  follows  :  Canon  I.  passages  common  to  all  four  Gospels  ;  II.  those 
common  to  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke  ;  III.  those  common  to  Matt.,  Luke,  and  John  ;  IV.  those 

Til  1C    LIKK   AND   WRITINGS    OK   KUSKBIUS.  39 

common  to  Matt.,  Mark,  and  John;  V.  those  common  to  Matthew  and  Luke;  VI.  those  com- 
mon to  Matt,  and  Mark;  VII.  those  common  to  Matt,  and  John  ;  VIII.  those  common  to  Luke 
and  Mark;  IX.  those  common  to  Luke  and  John;  X.  those  peculiar  to  each  Gospel:  first  to 
Matthew,  second  to  Mark,  third  to  Luke,  and  fourth  to  John. 

Each  Gospel  was  then  divided  into  sections,  which  were  numbered  continuously.  The  length 
of  the  section  was  determined,  not  by  the  sense,  but  by  the  table  of  canons,  each  section  com- 
prising a  passage  common  to  four,  to  three,  to  two  Gospels,  or  peculiar  to  itself,  as  the  case  might 
be.  A  single  section  therefore  might  comprise  even  less  than  a  verse,  or  it  might  cover  more 
than  a  chapter.  The  sections  were  numbered  in  black,  and  below  each  number  was  placed  a 
second  figure  in  red,  indicating  the  canon  to  which  the  section  belonged.  Upon  glancing  at  that 
canon  the  reader  would  find  at  once  the  numbers  of  the  parallel  sections  in  the  other  Gospels, 
and  could  turn  to  them  readily.  The  following  is  a  specimen  of  a  few  lines  of  the  first  canon  :  — 

MT.  MP.  A.  111. 

*  ft  t 

ia  8  i  s 

la  8  i  ift 

lu  8  i  18 

Thus,  opposite  a  certain  passage  in  John,  the  reader  finds  i/3  (12)  written,  and  beneath  it,  A 
(i).  He  therefore  turns  to  the  first  canon  (A)  and  finds  that  sections  iu  (11)  in  Matthew,  8  (4)  in 
Mark,  and  t  (10)  in  Luke  are  parallel  with  i/3  in  John.  The  advantage  and  convenience  of  such 
a  system  are  obvious,  and  the  invention  of  it  shows  great  ingenuity.  It  has  indeed  never  been 
superseded,  and  the  sections  and  canons  are  still  indicated  in  the  margins  of  many  of  our  best 
Greek  Testaments  (e.g.,  in  those  of  Tregelles  and  of  Tischendorf).  The  date  of  the  construction 
of  these  canons  it  is  quite  impossible  to  determine.  For  further  particulars  in  regard  to  them, 
see  Lightfoot's  article  on  Kusebius,  p.  334  sq.,  and  Scrivener's  Introduction  to  the  Criticism  of  the 
New  Testament,  2d  ed.  p.  54  sq.  The  canons,  with  the  letter  to  Garpianus  prefixed,  are  given 
by  Migne,  Opera,  IV.  1275-1292. 

Gospel  Questions  and  Solutions.  This  work  consists  of  two  parts,  or  of  two  separate  works 
combined.  The  first  bears  the  title  Gospel  Questions  and  Solutions  addressed  to  Steplianus 
(TT/JOS  ^Te'^uvov  vre/jt  TMV  eV  ewyye/Vois  £r;Tr;/Auro)i'  KUI  Xuorcwv),  and  is  referred  to  by  Lusebltis  in 
his  Dem.  Kvang.  VII.  3,  as  Questions  and  Solutions  on  (lie  Genealogy  of  our  Saviour  (TWV  eis 
TI/V  yeveaAoyiuv  TOU  crwn/pos  I^/AOJV  {,rjTi)p.u.T<i)v  Kal  Awreiui/).  I  he  second  part  is  entitled  Gospel 
Questions  and  Solutions  addressed  to  Marinus  (777)05  Mu/uu/ov).  The  first  work  consisted  of  two 
books,  as  we  learn  from  the  opening  of  the  second  work.  In  that  passage,  referring  to  the 
previous  work,  Kusebius  says  that  having  discussed  there  the  difficulties  which  beset  the 
beginning  of  the  Gospels,  he  will  now  proceed  to  consider  questions  concerning  the  latter  part 
of  them,  the  intermediate  portions  being  omitted.  He  thus  seems  to  regard  the  two  works  as 
in  a  sense  forming  parts  of  one  whole.  In  his  de  vir.  ill.  81,  Jerome  mentions  among  the 
writings  of  Kusebius  one  On  the  Discrepancy  of  the  Gospels  (De  Erangeliorum  Diaphonia},  and 
in  his  Coinm.  in  Matt.  chap.  I.  vers.  16,  he  refers  to  Kusebius'  libri  Sia<£wvias  euuyyeAcW.  Kbed- 
jesu  also  remarks,  "  Kusebius  Grcsariensis  composuit  librum  solutionis  contradictionum  evangelii." 
In  the  sixteenth  century  there  were  found  in  Sicily,  according  to  the  announcement  of  Latino 
Latini,  "  libri  tres  Kusebii  Gaisariensis  de  Kvangeliorum  diaphonia,"  but  nothing  more  has  been 
heard  or  seen  of  this  Sicilian  MS.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  work  referred  to  under 
the  title  DC  Evangclioruni  Diaphonia  is  identical  with  the  Gospel  Questions  and  Solutions, 
for  the  discrepancies  in  the  Gospels  occupy  a  considerable  space  in  the  Questions  and  Solutions 
as  we  have  it,  and  the  word  8ia<£awu  occurs  frequently.  The  three  books  mentioned  by  Latino 
Latini  were  therefore  the  two  books  addressed  to  Stephanus  which  Eusebius  himself  refers  to,  and 
the  one  book  addressed  to  Marinus.  The  complete  work  is  no  longer  extant,  but  an  epitome  of 


it  was  discovered  and  published  by  Mai,  together  with  numerous  fragments  of  the  unabridged 
work,  two  of  them  in  Syriac  (  AY/V.  A'ora  Patrnin,  \\ .  217  sq.  ;  reprinted  by  Migne,  Opera,  IV. 
879-10  i  (>).  In  the  epitome  the  work  addressed  to  Stcphanus  consists  of  sixteen  chapters,  and 
the  division  into  two  books  is  not  retained.  The  work  addressed  to  Marinus  consists  of  only 
four  chapters. 

The  work  purports  to  have  been  written  in  answer  to  questions  and  difficulties  stiggested  by 
Stephanus  and  Marinus,  who  are  addressed  by  Kusebius  in  terms  of  affection  and  respect.  The 
first  work  is  devoted  chiefly  to  a  discussion  of  the  genealogies  of  Christ,  as  given  by  Matthew  and 
Kuke  ;  the  second  work  deals  with  the  apparent  discrepancies  between  the  accounts  of  the  resur- 
rection as  given  by  the  different  evangelists.  Kusebius  does  not  always  reach  a  solution  of  the 
ditfii  ulties,  but  his  work  is  suggestive  and  interesting.  The  question  as  to  the  date  of  the  work  is 
complicated  by  the  fact  that  there  is  in  the  Dem.  Eran^.  VII.  3  a  reference  to  the  Questions  and 
Stephanas,  while  in  the  epitome  of  the  latter  work  (Quaest.VM.  §  7) 

there  is  a  distinct  reference  to  the  Demons/ratio  Erein^.  This  can  be  satisfactorily  explained 
mly  by  supposing,  with  Kightfoot,  that  the  Kpitome  was  made  at  a  later  date  than  the  original 

•k,  and  that  then  Kusebius  inserted  this  reference  to  the  Demanstratio.  We  are  thus  led  to 
assume  two  editions  of  this  work,  as  of  others  of  Kusebius'  writings,  the  second  edition  being  a 
revised  abridgment  of  the  first.  The  first  edition,  at  least  of  the  Q/ttestio/ies  ad  Stephanum, 
must  have  been  published  before  the  .Deuionstratio  Era/ige/ica.  We  cannot  fix  the  date  of  the 
epitome,  nor  of  the  Q;/,,  s/iones  ad  Marinnm. 

t<>  ''  Psalms  (et's  TOL>S  i//aA/xow ) .     This  commentary  is  extant  entire  as  far  as 

the  nSth  psalm,  but  from  that  point  to  the  end  only  fragments  of  it  have  been  preserved.  It 
was  first  published  in  1707,  by  Montfaucon,  who,  however,  knew  nothing  of  the  fragments  of  the 
latter  part  of  the  work.  These  were  discovered  and  published  by  Mai,  in  1847  {MM.  Xor. 
J'atn/in,  l\ .  65  sq.),  and  the  entire  extant  work,  including  these  fragments,  is  printed  by  Migne, 
Opera,  V.  and  VI.  9-76.  According  to  Kightfoot,  notices  of  extant  Syriac  extracts  from  it  are 
found  in  Wright's  Catal.  Syr.  MSS.  Brit.  Mus.  pp.  35  sq.  and  125.  Jerome  {de  rir.  ill.  96 
and  Ep.  ad  rigifant  'tin,  §  2  ;  Migne's  ed.  l?p.  61)  informs  us  that  Kusebius  of  Vercellre  trans- 
lated this  commentary  into  Katin,  omitting  the  heretical  passages.  This  version  is  no  longer 
extant.  The  commentary  had  a  high  reputation  among  the  Fathers,  and  justly  so.  It  is  distin- 
guished tor  its  learning,  industry,  and  critical  acumen.  The  Hexapla  is  used  with  great  diligence, 
and  the  author  frequently  corrects  the  received  KXX.  text  of  his  day  upon  the  authority  of  one 
of  the  other  versions.  The  work  betrays  an  acquaintance  with  Hebrew,  uncommon  among  the 
Fathers,  but  by  no  means  extensive  or  exact.  Kusebius  devotes  considerable  attention  to  the 
historical  relations  of  the  Psalms,  and  exhibits  an  unusual  degree  of  good  judgment  in  their  treat- 
ment, but  the  allegorical  method  of  the  school  of  Origen  is  conspicuous,  and  leads  him  into  the 
mystical  extravagances  so  common  to  patristic  exegesis. 

The  work  must  have  been  written  after  the  close  of  the  persecution  and  the  death  of  the 
persecutors  (///  Psal.  XVI.  12).  In  another  passage  (///  Psal.  KXXXVII.  n)  there  seems  to 
be  a  reference  to  the  discovery  of  the  site  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre  and  the  erection  of  Constantino's 
basilica  upon  it  (see  Vita  Const.  III.  28,  30,  &c.).  The  basilica  was  dedicated  in  the  year  335 
(see  above,  p.  24),  and  the  site  of  the  sepulchre  was  not  discovered  until  the  year  326,  or  later 
(see  Kightfoot,  p.  336).  The  commentary  must  have  been  written  apparently  after  the  basilica 
was  begun,  and  probably  after  its  completion.  If  so,  it  is  to  be  placed  among  the  very  latest  of 
Kusebius'  works. 

n  Isaiah  ( CTTO/AI/I^UTU  et's  'Ibm/ur).     This  work  is  also  extant  almost  entire,  and 
was  first  published  in   1706,  by  Montfaucon  (Co//.  Nora  Patrum  et  Script.  Grccc.  II.;  reprinted 
by  Migne,  Opera,  VI.  77-526).     In  his  ,/,•  rir.  ill.  81   Jerome  refers  to  it  as  containing  ten  books 
///),  but  in  the  preface  to  his  Comment,  in  Isaiam  he  speaks  of  it  as   com- 
posed of  fifteen  ( Euscbius  quoque  Pamphili  jtixta  hisloruam   cxplanationcm  quindedm   edidit 

Till':    LIFE   AND   WRITINGS    OK   KUSKHIUS.  41 

volumina).  In  its  present  form  there  is  no  trace  of  a  division  into  books.  The  commentary  is 
marked  by  the  same  characteristics  which  were  noticed  in  connection  with  the  one  on  the  Psalms, 
though  it  does  not  seem  to  have  acquired  among  the  ancients  so  great  a  reputation  as  that  work. 
It  must  have  been  written  after  the  close  of  the  persecution  (in  Js.  XLIV.  5),  and  apparently 
after  the  accession  of  Constantine  to  sole  power  (///  />.  XLIX.  23  compared  with  Vita  Const. 
IV.  28).  If  the  commentary  on  the  Psalms  was  written  toward  the  close  of  Eusebius'  life,  as 
assumed  above,  it  is  natural  to  conclude  that  the  present  work  preceded  that. 

Commentary  on  Luke  (ets  TO  Kara  A.OVKU.V  djuyye'Aiw) .  This  work  is  no  longer  extant,  but 
considerable  fragments  of  it  exist  and  have  been  published  by  Mai  (/>//'/.  Nova  Pa  In/ in,  IV. 
159  sq. ;  reprinted  by  Migne,  Opera,  VI.  529-606).  Although  the  fragments  are  all  drawn  from 
Catena:  on  Luke,  there  are  many  passages  which  seem  to  have  been  taken  from  a  commentary 
on  Matthew  (see  the  notes  of  the  editor).  A  number  of  extracts  from  the  work  are  found  in 
Eusebius'  TheopJiania  (see  Mai's  introduction  to  his  fragments  of  the  latter  work). 

The  date  of  the  commentary  cannot  be  fixed  with  certainty,  but  I  am  inclined  to  place  it 
before  the  persecution  of  Diocletian,  for  the  reason  that  there  appears  in  the  work,  so  far  as  I  have 
discovered,  no  hint  of  a  persecution,  although  the  passages  expounded  offer  many  opportunities 
for  such  a  reference,  which  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  the  author  could  have  avoided  making  if  a 
persecution  were  in  progress  while  he  was  writing ;  and  further,  because  in  discussing  Christ's 
prophecies  of  victory  and  dominion  over  the  whole  world,  no  reference  is  made  to  the  triumph 
gained  by  the  Church  in  the  victories  of  Constantine.  A  confirmation  of  this  early  date  may  be 
found  in  the  extreme  simplicity  of  the  exegesis,  which  displays  neither  the  wide  learning,  nor  the 
profound  study  that  mark  the  commentaries  on  the  Psalms  and  on  Isaiah. 

Commentary  on  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Corintliians.  This  work  is  no  longer  extant,  and  we 
know  of  it  only  from  a  reference  in  Jerome's  Ep.  ad  Pammaehium,  §  3  (Migne's  ed.  P.p. 
49)  :  "Origenes,  Dionysius,  Pierius,  Eusebius  Coesariensis,  Didymus,  Apollinaris  latissime  hanc 
Epistolam  interpretati  sunt." 

Exegetical Fragments,  Mai  has  published  brief  fragments  containing  expositions  of  passages 
from  Proverbs  (Bibl.  Nova  Patntin,  IV.  316;  reprinted  by  Migne,  Opera,  VI.  75-78),  from 
Daniel  (ib.  p.  314  ;  Migne,  VI.  525-528),  and  from  the  Epistle  to  the  Jlcbreivs  (id.  p.  207  ;  Migne, 
VI.  605).  Eabricius  mentions  also  fragments  from  a  commentary  on  the  Song  of  Songs  as 
published  by  Meursius,  and  says  that  other  commentaries  are  referred  to  by  Montfaucon  in  his 
Epistola  de  Tlierapeutis,  p.  151.  We  have  no  references  in  the  works  of  the  ancients  to  any  such 
commentaries,  so  far  as  I  am  aware,  and  it  is  quite  possible  that  the  various  fragments  given  by 
Mai,  as  well  as  those  referred  to  by  Fabricius  may  have  been  taken  not  from  continuous  commen- 
taries, but  from  Eusebius'  General  Elementary  Introduction,  or  others  of  his  lost  works.  Accord- 
ing to  Migne  (VI.  527)  some  Greek  Catena  published  by  Cramer  in  Oxford  in  the  year  1884  con- 
tain extensive  fragments  on  Matthew  and  John,  which,  however,  have  been  taken  from  Eusebius' 
Quizst.  Evang.  Other  fragments  in  Catena:  on  the  same  Evangelists  and  on  Mark,  have  been 
taken,  according  to  Migne,  from  the  Qticcstioncs  ad  Stephana  in,  or  from  the  Commentary  on  Luke. 

It  is,  however,  quite  possible,  as  it  seems  to  me,  that  Eusebius  wrote  a  commentary  on  Daniel. 
At  any  rate,  the  exegetical  fragments  which  we  have,  taken  with  the  extended  discussions  of  certain 
passages  found  in  the  Dem.  Evang.  VIII.  2  and  in  the  Eclo^e.  Proph.  III.  40  sq.,  show  that  he 
expounded  at  one  time  or  another  a  considerable  portion  of  the  book. 

VI.     Bim.ICAL    DlCTlONAKlKS. 

Interpretation  of  the  Ethnological  Terms  in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures.  This  work  is  no  longer 
extant,  but  is  known  to  us  from  Eusebius'  reference  to  it  in  the  preface  to  his  work  On  the 
Names  of  Places,  where  he  writes  as  follows  :  TWI/  um  TT/I/  oiVoi'/xeVrp  I9vw  eVt  TI/V  eAAaSu  <j>wi)v 
/xera^aAwi/  ra?  eV  TTJ  flecu  ypafaj  Kti/xeVas  e/fyuiois  ovofJMnn  7T/)ooyj?/o-£is.  Jerome,  ill  the  preface  to 

his  Latin  version  of  the  same  work,  also  refers  to  it  in  the  following  words :  " .      .  diversarum 


vocabula  nationum,  qtue  quomodo  ohm   apud    llebneos  dicta  sint,  et  mine  dicantur,  ex]>osuit." 
No  other  am  ient  audiority  mentions  the  work  so  far  as  I  am  aware. 

Clioro-raphv  oj  .  Indent  Judea  un/li  the  Inheritances  of  the  Ten  Tribes.  This  work  too  is  lost, 
but  is  referred  to  by  Kusebius  in  the  same  preface  in  the  following  words:  T/>  7niX«u  'Ioi>S<u'us  UTTO 
7ru.rVs-  l!/'/Am-  Kur.-ypu/.;,.'  -t-ouy/y.tVos  *<u  TC«  eV  aurr;  TUI/  SwScKa  «#mXw  Suupuv  K\Typous.  Jerome 

(//'.)  says:   "...  Chorographiam  terrae  Judaeae,  et  distinctas  tribuum  sortes  .  .  .  laboravit." 

It  is  remarked  by  l;abricius  that  this  work  is  evidently  intended  by  Kbedjesu  in  his  catalogue, 
where  he  mention.-,  among  the  writings  of  Kusebius  a  Librum  de  ]<i^itra  Mundi  (cf.  Assemam's 
/>'//'/.  One  a/.  111.  p.  i.S,  note  7). 

./  /'/,///  (/  Jerusalem  and  of  the  7\-mple,  accompanied  with  Memoirs  relating  to  the  Various 
Localities.  This  too  is  lost,  but  is  referred  to  by  Kusebius  (//'.)  in  the  following  words  :  ok  Iv 
yna</>r;s-  rrrrco  TI^  TruAcu  fSi././^/jroi'  //.//T/joTroXeos  mV//s-  (Xe'yw  &£  r/yi/  'Ie/jOD(ruXT//u.)  TO?'  re  eV  ut'r;;  U/w 
r»yr  i/\<Jm  (Sia^u/ju^as  /i.tra  77u/-tu0£<re<i>s  TWI/  ets  rois  TUTTta'S  VTTO/AVi^aTOJV.  Jerome  (//'.)  says  :  "  ipsius 
quoque  Jerusalem  templique  in  ea  cum  brevissima  expositione  picturam,  ad  extremum  in  hoc 
opusculo  laboravit." 

();i  the  Names  of  Places  in  Holy  Scripture  (TTC/JI  TW  TOTTIKWV  OVO/JLOLTWV  TWV  tv  rfj  Qua 
y/>.u/>v).  In  Jerome's  version  this  work  bears  the  title  Liber  de  Situ  et  Nominibits  Locorum 
Hebraicorum,  but  in  his  de  rir.  ill.  81,  he  refers  to  it  "as  TOTTLKWV,  liber  unus,  and  so  it  is  commonly 
called  simply  Topica.  It  is  still  extant,  both  in  the  original  Creek  and  in  a  revised  and  partly 
independent  Latin  version  by  Jerome,  lioth  are  published  by  Vallarsi  in  Hieronynii  Opera,  III. 
122  sq.  Migne.  in  his  edition  of  Kusebius'  works,  omits  the  Topica  and  refers  to  his  edition  of 
Jerome's  works,  where,  however,  he  gives  only  Jerome's  version,  not  the  original  ('.reek  (III. 
859-928).  The  best  editions  of  the  Creek  text  are  by  Larsow  and  Parthey  (Ritseb.  Pain  ph.  Kpisc. 
Cics.  Onomasticon,  i\:c.,  ISerolini,  1862),  and  by  Lagarde  (Onomas/ica  Sacra,  I.  207-304,  Cot- 
tinga-,  1870).  The  work  aims  to  give,  in  the  original  language,  in  alphabetical  order,  the  names 
of  the  cities,  villages,  mountains,  rivers.  &<:.,  mentioned  in  the  Scriptures,  together  with  their 
modern  designations  and  brief  descriptions  of  each.  The  work  is  thus  of  the  same  character  as 
a  modern  dictionary  or  P.iblical  geography.  The  other  three  works  were  narrower  than  this 
one  in  their  scope,  but  seem  also  to  have  been  arranged  somewhat  on  the  dictionary  plan.  The 
work  is  dedicated  to  Paulinus,  a  fact  which  leads  us  to  place  its  composition  before  325  A.D., 
when  Paulinus  was  already  dead  (see  below,  p.  369).  Jerome,  in  the  preface  to  his  version, 
says  that  Kusebius  wrote  the  work  after  his  History  and  Chronicle.  We  are  to  conclude,  then, 
either  that  the  work  was  published  in  324  or  early  in  325,  within  a  very  few  months  after  the 
History,  or,  what  is  more  probable,  that  Jerome  is  mistaken  in  his  statement.  He  is  proverbially 
careless  and  inaccurate,  and  Kusebius,  neither  in  his  preface —  from  which  Jerome  largely  quotes 
in  his  own  —  nor  in  the  work  itself,  gives  any  hint  of  the  fact  that  his  History  and  Chronicle  were 
already  written. 

On  tlic  Nomenclature  of  tlie  Hook  of  the  Prophets  (irepl  TT/S-  TOU  /8i/3Xiou  rCiv  Trpo^rwi/ 
oMvxu.rtas-  KIU  UTTO  /j.e^oi's  ri  Tre/ne'x"  eVucrros ) .  '''his  work  contains  brief  accounts  of  the  several 
prophets  and  notes  the  subjects  of  their  prophecies.  It  is  thus,  so  far  as  it  goes,  a  sort  of 
biographical  dictionary.  It  was  first  published  by  C'urterius  in  his  Procopii  Sophistce  Christiana; 
rariarum  in  Isaiam  Prophelam  commentalionitm  epitome  (Paris,  1850,  under  the  title  De 
ritis  Prophetarum.  by  which  it  is  commonly  known.  We  have  no  means  of  determining  the  date 
of  its  composition.  Curterius'  text  has  been  reprinted  by  Migne,  Opera,  IV.  1261-1272. 


Panegyric  on  the  Jiuildin*  of  the  Chit  relics,  addressed  to  Paulinus,  JnsJiop  of  Tyre  (llavrf 
yr/XKos  «Vi  r^  TWV  eKK\if(nwv,  Oar'AiVu)  Tiyjtwv  eVtcrKOTrw  7rpo(r7re(^)OJi/r/jU.€vo'i ) .  I  ins  oration 
was  delivered  at  the  dedication  of  Paulinus'  new  church  in  Tyre,  to  which  reference  has  already 
been  made  (see  above,  p.  1 1 ).  It  has  been  preserved  in  Eusebius'  History,  Book  X.  chap.  4  (see 
below,  p.  370  sq.). 


Oration  delivered  at  the  Vicennalia  of  Constantine.  Eusebius  refers  to  this  in  the  Preface 
to  his  Vila  Constantini  as  etKocruer^/atKot  w/xi/ot.  It  is  to  be  identified  with  the  oration  delivered 
at  the  opening  of  the  Council  of  Nicoea  {Vita  Const.  III.  11),  as  stated  above,  on  p.  KJ.  It  in 
unfortunately  no  longer  extant. 

Oration  on  the  Sepulchre  of  the  Saviour.  In  his  Vita  Const.  IV.  33  Euscbius  informs  us 
that  he  delivered  an  oration  on  this  subject  (d/j-^l  TOV  <ro)Tr//nou  /AI^/AUTOS  Aoyos-)  in  the  presence 
of  the  Emperor  at  Constantinople.  In  the  same  work,  IV.  46,  he  says  that  he  wrote  a  descrip- 
tion of  the  church  of  the  Saviour  and  of  his  sepulchre,  as  well  as  of  the  splendid  presents  given 
by  the  Emperor  for  their  adornment.  This  description  he  gave  in  a  special  work  which  lie- 
addressed  to  the  Emperor  (ev  oi/m'o>  o-vyypd/x/xari  TrupuSoi/res,  UIJTOJ  /^ucriAet  7rpo<.re<£wi/r;tru/u.£v) .  If 
these  two  are  identical,  as  has  always  been  assumed,  the  Oration  on  the  Sepulchre  must  have 
been  delivered  in  335,  when  Eusebius  went  to  Constantinople,  just  after  the  dedication  of  the 
Church  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre  in  Jerusalem  (see  above,  p.  23),  and  just  before  the  Oratio  de 
laudibiis  Constantini  (see  ib.  IV.  46).  That  the  two  are  identical  has  always  been  assumed,  and 
seems  most  probable.  At  the  same  time  it  is  worthy  of  notice  that  in  IV.  33  Eusebius  speaks  as 
if  he  returned  to  Ceesarea  immediately  after  delivering  his  oration,  and  gives  no  hint  of  the 
delivery  of  his  De  laud.  Const,  at  that  time.  It  is  noticeable  also  that  he  speaks  in  IV.  46  of  a 
work  (o-uyypa/AjiAu)  not  of  an  oration  (Ao'yos),  and  that  in  IV.  45  he  mentions  the  fact  that  he  has 
described  the  splendid  edifice  and  gifts  of  the  Emperor  ///  writing  (Si«.  y/aa/M/xuros ) ,  which 
would  seem  to  imply  something  else  than  an  address.  Finally,  it  is  to  be  observed  that,  whereas,  in 
IV.  46,  he  expressly  refers  to  the  church  erected  by  Constantine  and  to  his  rich  gifts  in  connection 
with  its  construction,  in  IV.  33  he  refers  only  to  the  sepulchre.  It  appears  to  me,  in  fact,  quite 
possible  that  Eusebius  may  be  referring  to  two  entirely  different  compositions,  the  one  an  oration 
delivered  after  the  discovery  of  the  sepulchre  and  before  the  Emperor  had  built  the  church 
(perhaps  containing  the  suggestion  of  such  a  building),  the  other  a  descriptive  work  written  after 
the  completion  of  that  edifice.  I  present  this  only  as  a  possibility,  for  I  reali/.e  that  against  it 
may  be  urged  the  unlikelihood  that  two  separate  works  should  have  been  composed  by  Eusebius 
upon  subjects  so  nearly,  if  not  quite,  identical,  and  also  the  probability  that,  if  there  were  two, 
both,  and  not  one  only,  would  have  been  attached  to  the  end  of  the  Vita  Const,  with  the  De 
laud  Const,  (see  IV.  46).  Neither  the  Oration  on  the  Sepulchre  of  the  Saviour  nor  the  \Vork 
on  the  Church  and  the  Sepulchre  (whether  the  two  are  the  same  or  not)  is  now  extant. 

Oration  delivered  at  the  Tricennalia  of  Constantine  (et?  KowaTavrlvov  TW  /?u<  r/jiuKoi'Tut- 
Tr/piKos),  commonly  known  under  the  title  O ratio  de  laudibus  Constantini.  In  his  Vita  Const. 
IV.  46,  Eusebius  promised  to  append  this  oration,  together  with  the  writing  On  the  Church  and 
the  Sepulchre,  to  that  work.  The  de  laudilms  is  still  found  at  the  end  of  the  MSS.  of  the  Vita, 
while  the  other  writing  is  lost.  It  was  delivered  in  Constantinople  in  335  on  the  occasion  of  the 
Emperor's  triccnnalia,  very  soon  after  the  dedication  of  the  church  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre  in 
Jerusalem  (see  above,  p.  25).  It  is  highly  panegyrical,  but  contains  a  great  deal  of  theology, 
especially  in  regard  to  the  person  and  work  of  the  Logos.  Large  portions  of  it  were  afterward 
incorporated  into  the  Vita  Constantini  and  the  Thcophania.  The  oration  is  published  in  most. 
if  not  all,  editions  of  the  Vita  Constantini;  in  Migne,  Opera,  II.  1315-1440. 

Oration  in  Praise  of  the  Martyrs.  This  oration  is  mentioned  in  the  catalogue  of  Ebedjesu 
{ct  orationcm  de  laudibiis  eorum  [i.e.  Martyrum  Occidentalium]  ;  see  Assemani,  />//'/.  Orient. 
III.  p.  19),  and,  according  to  Lightfoot,  is  still  extant  in  a  Syriac  version,  which  has  been 
published  in  the  Journal  of  Sacred  Literature,  N.  S.,  Vol.  V.  p.  403  sq.,  with  an  English  trans- 
lation by  B.  H.  Cowper,  ib.  VI.  p.  129  sq.  Lightfoot  finds  in  it  an  indication  that  it  was  delivered 
at  Antioch,  but  pronounces  it  of  little  value  or  importance. 

On  the  Failure  of  Rain.  This  is  no  longer  extant,  and  is  known  to  us  only  from  a  reference 
in  the  catalogue  of  Ebedjesu  (et  o ratio nem  de  defectu pluvice ;  see  Assemani,  ib.). 



To  Alexander,  bishop  of  Alexandria.  The  purpose  and  the  character  of  this  epistle  have 
been  already  discussed  (see  above,  p.  oo).  A  fragment  of  it  lias  been  preserved  in  the  Proceed- 
ings of  the  Second  Council  of  Nic;ea,  Act  VI.,  Tom.  V.  (Labbci  cl  Cossartii  Cone.  VII.  col.  497). 
For  a  translation  of  the  epistle,  see  below,  p.  70.  This  and  the  following  epistle  were  written 
after  the  outbreak  of  the  Arian  controversy,  but  before  the  Nicene  Council. 

'J\>  /'".  up/i  ratio  n,  bishop  of  ISalaneaj  in  Syria,  likewise  a  strong  opponent  of  the  Arians  (see 
Athan.  dc  ]'"u^a,  5;  Hist.  Ar.  ait  Mini.  $).  Alhanasius  states  that  this  epistle  declared  plainly 
that  Christ  is  not  God  (Athan.  //<  S\-nod.  \-j).  A  brief  fragment  of  it  has  been  preserved  in  the 
Acts  of  the  Second  Council  of  Nicaja  (/.c.),  which  probably  contains  the  very  passage  to  which 
Athanasius  refers.  Upon  the  interpretation  and  significance  of  the  fragment,  see  above,  p.  15. 

/;<  Constantia  Au^us/a,  the  sister  of  Constantine  and  wife  of  Licinius.  Constantia  had  written 
to  Kuscbius  requesting  him  to  send  her  a  certain  likeness  of  Christ  of  which  she  had  heard. 
Kusebius,  in  this  epistle,  rebukes  her,  and  speaks  strongly  against  the  use  of  such  representations, 
on  the  ground  that  it  tends  toward  idolatry.  The  tone  of  the  letter  is  admirable.  Numerous 
fragments  of  it  have  been  discovered,  so  that  we  have  it  now  almost  entire.  It  is  printed  in 
Migne,  Opera,  II.  1545-1550.  We  have  no  means  of  ascertaining  the  date  at  which  it  was  written. 

7'o  tlu-  Church  <>f  dcsa/ra.  This  epistle  was  written  from  Niccea  in  325  A.D.,  during  or 
immediately  after  the  Council.  Its  purpose  and  character  have  been  discussed  above  on  p.  16  sq., 
where  a  translation  of  it  is  given.  The  epistle  is  preserved  by  Athanasius  (tic  Deci  ct.  Syn.  NIC. 
app. )  ;  by  Socrates,  //.  It.  I.  8;  by  Theodoret,  //.  E.  I.  n,  and  others.  It  is  printed  by 
Migne,  Opera,  II.  1535-1544. 

In  the  Acts  of  the  Second  Council  of  \ic;ea  (/.<.)  we  find  a  mention  of  "all  the  epistles" 
of  Kusebius,  as  if  many  were  at  that  time  extant.  We  know,  however,  only  of  those  which  have 
been  mentioned  above. 

IX.     Si'i'kiors  OR  PoiT.Tin,  WORKS. 

Fourteen  Latin  opuscitla  were  discovered  and  published  by  Sirmond  in  1643,  an(l  have  been 
frequently  reprinted  (Migne,  Opera,  VI.  1047-1208).  They  are  of  a  theological  character,  and 
bear  the  following  titles  :  — 

DC  fide  adv.  Sabelliuin,  libri  duo. 

/)<'  Resurrectionc,  lil>ri  duo. 

l)e  Incorporali  et  invisibili  Deo. 

I)c  Incorporali. 

DC  Incorporali  Aniina. 

De  Spiritali  Co-Atatu  hoi/iinis. 

DC  co  (jitod  Dens  J\iter  incorporalis  cst,  libri  duo. 

/)(-  co  quod  ait  Dominus,  Non  veni  paean,  etc. 

De  jMiinda/o  Domini,  Quod  ait,  Quod  dico  i<obis  in  aurc,  etc. 

De  ope ril' us  l>onis  ct  malis. 

DC  operibus  bonis,  c\  cpist.  //.  ad  Corinth. 

Their  authenticity  is  a  matter  of  dispute.  Some  of  them  may  be  genuine,  but  Lardner  is 
doubtless  right  in  denying  the  genuineness  of  the  two  Against  Sabellius,  which  are  the  most 
important  of  all  (see  Lardner's  Credibility,  Part  II.  chap.  72). 

Lightfoot  states  that  a  treatise,  On  the  Star  which  appeared  to  the  Magi,  was  published  by 
Wright  in  the  Journal  of  Sacred  Literature  (1866)  from  a  Syriac  MS.  It  is  ascribed  to  Kusebius, 
but  its  genuineness  has  been  disputed,  and  good  reasons  have  been  given  for  supposing  that  it 
was  written  originally  in  Syriac  (see  Lightfoot,  p.  345). 


Fabricius  (/>//'/.  Gr.  VI.  104)  reports  that  the  following  works  are  extant  in  MS.  :  Eragmen- 
tinn  de  Mensuris  ac  Ponderibus  (MSS.  Is.  Vossii,  n.  179)  ;  DC  Mortc  Jlerodis  (MS.  in  Bibl. 
Basil.)  ;  Pnefatio  ad  Canticum  Mosis  in  Exodo  (Limbec.  111.  ]>.  35). 


§  i.     Date  of  its  Composition. 

THE  work  with  which  we  are  especially  concerned  at  this  time  is  the  Church  History,  the 
original  Greek  of  which  is  still  extant  in  numerous  MSS.  It  consists  of  ten  books,  to  which  is 
added  in  most  of  the  MSS.  the  shorter  form  of  the  Martyrs  of  Palestine  (see  above,  p.  29). 
The  date  of  the  work  can  be  determined  with  considerable  exactness.  It  closes  with  a  eulogy 
of  Constantine  and  his  son  Crispus  ;  and  since  the  latter  was  put  to  death  by  his  father  in 
the  summer  of  326,  the  History  must  have  been  completed  before  that  time.  On  the  other  hand, 
in  the  same  chapter  Eusebius  refers  to  the  defeat  of  Licinius,  which  took  place  in  the  year 
323  A.I).  This  gives  a  fixed  terminus  a  quo.  It  is  not  quite  certain  from  Eusebius'  words 
whether  the  death  of  Licinius  had  already  taken  place  at  the  time  he  wrote,  but  it  seems  probable 
that  it  had,  and  if  so,  the  completion  of  the  work  must  be  put  as  late  as  the  summer  of  324.  On 
the  other  hand,  not  the  slightest  reference  is  made  to  the  Council  of  Nicrca,  which  met  in  the 
summer  of  325  ;  and  still  further  the  tenth  book  is  dedicated  to  Paulinus,  at  one  time  bishop  of 
Tyre  and  afterward  bishop  of  Antioch  (see  Euscb.  Contra  Marc.  I.  4,  and  Philost.  //.  E.  III. 
15),  who  was  already  dead  in  the  summer  of  325  :  for  at  the  Nicene  Council,  Zeno  appears  as 
bishop  of  Tyre,  and  Eustathius  as  bishop  of  Antioch  (see  for  further  particulars  Lightfoot,  p.  322). 
We  are  thus  led  to  place  the  completion  of  the  History  in  the  year  324,  or,  to  give  the  widest 
possible  limits,  between  the  latter  part  of  323  and  the  early  part  of  325  A.D. 

But  the  question  has  been  raised  whether  the  earlier  books  may  not  have  been  composed 
some  years  before  this.  Lightfoot  (following  Westcott)  supposes  that  the  first  nine  books  were 
completed  not  long  after  the  edict  of  Milan  and  before  the  outbreak  of  the  quarrel  between  Con- 
stantine and  Licinius  in  314.  There  is  considerable  to  be  said  in  favor  of  this  theory.  The 
language  used  in  the  dedication  of  the  tenth  book  seems  to  imply  that  the  nine  books  had  been 
completed  some  time  before,  and  that  the  tenth  is  added  as  a  sort  of  postscript.  The  close  of 
the  ninth  book  strengthens  that  conclusion.  Moreover,  it  would  seem  from  the  last  sentences 
of  that  book  that  Constantine  and  Licinius  were  in  perfect  harmony  at  the  time  it  was  written, 
a  state  of  affairs  which  did  not  exist  after  314.  On  the  other  hand,  it  must  be  noticed  that  in 
Book  IX.  chap.  9  Licinius'  "madness"  is  twice  referred  to  as  having  "not  yet"  seized  him  (in 
§  I  nvTTM  ^.avevros  Tore,  and  ill  §  12  OVTTW  Tore  e<£'  rjv  vcrrepov  eKTrorrtoKe  /AavLav,  T-TJV  Stavoiav  eKTpuTra's). 
It  is  necessary  eitfier  to  interpret  both  these  clauses  as  later  insertions  (possibly  by  Eusebius'  own 
hand  at  the  time  when  he  added  the  tenth  book;  cf.  also  p.  30,  above),  or  to  throw  the  com- 
position of  the  ninth  book  down  to  the  year  319  or  later.  It  is  difficult  to  decide  between  these 
alternatives,  but  I  am  inclined  on  the  whole  to  think  that  Westcott's  theory  is  probably  correct, 
and  that  the  two  clauses  can  best  be  interpreted  as  later  insertions.  The  very  nature  of  his 
History  would  at  any  rate  lead  us  to  think  that  Eusebius  spent  some  years  in  the  composition 
of  it,  and  that  the  earlier  books,  if  not  published,  were  at  least  completed  long  before  the  issue 
of  the  ten  books  as  a  whole.  The  CJironiclc  is  referred  to  as  already  written  in  I.  i  ;  the  Eclog(e 
Proph.  (?  see  below,  p.  85)  in  I.  2  and  6;  the  Collection  of  Ancient  Martyrdoms  in  IV.  15, 

V.  preface,  4,  and  22  ;  the  Defense  of  Origcn  in  VI.  23,  33,  and  36  ;  the  Life  of  Pamphilits  in 

VI.  32,  VII.  32,  and  VIII.  13.      In  VIII.  13  Eusebius  speaks  also  of  his  intention  of  relating  the 
sufferings  of  the  martyrs  in  another  work  (but  see  above,  p.  30). 


§  2.      The  Author's  Design. 

That  the  composition  of  a  history  of  the  Church  was  Kusebius'  own  idea,  and  was  not  due  to 
any  suggestion  from  without,  seems  clear,  both  from  the  absence  of  reference  to  any  one  else  as 
prompting  it,  and  from  the  lack  of  a  dedication  at  the  beginning  of  the  work.  The  reasons  which 
led  him  to  undertake  its  composition  seem  to  have  been  both  scientific,  and  apologetic.  He  lived, 
and  he  must  have  reali/ed  the  fact,  at  the  opening  of  a  new  age  in  the  history  of  the  Church. 
He  believed,  as  he  frequently  tells  us,  that  the  period  of  struggle  had  come  to  an  end,  and  that 
the  Church  was  now  about  entering  upon  a  new  era  of  prosperity.  He  must  have  seen  that  it  was 
a  peculiarly  fitting  time  to  put  on  record  for  the  benefit  of  posterity  the  great  events  which  had 
taken  place  within  the  Church  during  the  generations  that  were  past,  to  sum  up  in  one  narrative 
all  the  trials  and  triumphs  which  had  now  emerged  in  this  final  and  greatest  triumph,  which  he 
was  witnessing.  He  wrote,  as  any  historian  of  the  present  day  would  write,  for  the  information 
and  instruction  of  his  contemporaries  and  of  those  who  should  come  after,  and  yet  there  was  in 
his  mind  all  the  time  the  apologetic  purpose,  the  desire  to  exhibit  to  the  world  the  history  of 
Christianity  as  a  proof  of  its  divine  origin  and  efficacy.  The  plan  which  he  proposed  to  himself 
is  stated  at  the  very  beginning  of  his  work  :  "  It  is  my  purpose  to  write  an  account  of  the  succes- 
sions of  the  holy  apostles,  as  well  as  of  the  times  which  have  elapsed  from  the  days  of  our  Saviour 
to  our  own;  and  to  relate  how  many  and  how  important  events  are  said  to  have  occurred  in  the 
history  of  the  Church  ;  and  to  mention  those  who  have  governed  and  presided  over  the  Church 
in  the  most  prominent  parishes,  and  those  who  in  each  generation  have  proclaimed  the  divine 
word  either  orally  or  in  writing.  It  is  my  purpose  also  to  give  the  names  and  the  number  and 
the  tim*s  of  those  who  through  love  of  innovation  have  run  into  the  greatest  errors,  and  pro- 
claiming themselves  discoverers  of  knowledge,  falsely  so-called,  have,  like  fierce  wolves,  unmer- 
cifully devastated  the  flock  of  Christ.  It  is  my  intention,  moreover,  to  recount  the  misfortunes 
which  immediately  came  upon  the  whole  Jewish  nation  in  consequence  of  their  plots  against  our 
Saviour,  and  to  record  the  ways  and  the  times  in  which  the  divine  word  has  been  attacked  by  the 
(lentiles,  and  to  describe  the  character  of  those  who  at  various  periods  have  contended  for  it  in 
the  face  of  blood  and  tortures,  as  well  as  the  confessions  which  have  been  made  in  our  own  days, 
and  finally  the  gracious  and  kindly  succour  which  our  Saviour  afforded  them  all."  It  will  be  seei] 
that  Kusebius  had  a  very  comprehensive  idea  of  what  a  history  of  the  Church  should  comprise, 
and  that  he  was  fully  alive  to  iis  importance. 

§   3.     Ruscbiiis  as  a  Historian.     The  Merits  and  Defects  of  his  History. 

The  whole  Christian  world  has  reason  to  be  thankful  that  there  lived  at  the  opening  of  the 
fourth  century  a  man  who,  with  his  life  spanning  one  of  the  greatest  epochs  that  has  occurred 
in  the  history  of  the  Church,  with  an  intimate  experimental  knowledge  of  the  old  and  of  the  new 
condition  of  things,  was  able  to  conceive  so  grand  a  plan  and  possessed  the  means  and  the  ability 
to  carry  it  out.  Had  he  written  nothing  else,  Kusebius'  Church  Jlistory  would  have  made  him 
immortal  ;  for  if  immortality  be  a  fitting  reward  for  large  and  lasting  services,  few  possess  a  clearer 
title  to  it  than  the  author  of  that  work.  The  value  of  the  History  to  us  lies  not  in  its  literary 
merit,  but  in  the  wealth  of  the  materials  which  it  furnishes  for  a  knowledge  of  the  early  Church. 
How  many  prominent  figures  of  the  first  three  centuries  are  known  to  us  only  from  the  pages  of 
Kusebius  ;  how  many  fragments,  priceless  on  account  of  the  light  which  they  shed  upon  move- 
ments of  momentous  and  far-reaching  consequence,  have  been  preserved  by  him  alone;  how 
often  a  hint  dropped,  a  casual  statement  made  in  passing,  or  the  mention  of  some  apparently 
trifling  event,  gives  the  clue  which  enables  us  to  unravel  some  perplexing  labyrinth,  or  to  fit  into 
one  whole  various  disconnected  and  apparently  unrelated  elements,  and  thus  to  trace  the  steps 
in  the  development  of  some  important  historical  movement  whose  rise  and  whose  bearing  must 


otherwise  remain  an  unsolved  riddle.  The  work  reveals  no  sympathy  with  Kbionism,  Gnosticism, 
and  Montanism,  and  little  appreciation  of  their  real  nature,  and  yet  our  knowledge  of  their  true 
significance  and  of  their  place  in  history  is  due  in  considerable  part  to  facts  respecting  the  move- 
ments or  their  leaders  which  Eusebius  alone  has  recorded  or  preserved.  To  understand  the 
development  of  the  Logos  Christology  we  must  comprehend  the  significance  of  the  teaching  of 
Paul  of  Samosata,  and  how  inadequate  would  our  knowledge  of  the  nature  of  that  teaching  be 
without  the  epistle  quoted  in  Hook  VII.  chap.  30.  How  momentous  were  the  consequences  of  the 
paschal  controversies,  and  how  dark  would  they  be  were  it  not  for  the  light  shed  upon  them  by 
our  author.  I  low  important,  in  spite  of  their  tantalizing  brevity  and  obscurity,  the  fragments 
of  Papias' writings ;  how  interesting  the  extracts  from  the  memoirs  of  I  legesippus  ;  how  sugges- 
tive the  meager  notices  from  Dionysius  of  Corinth,  from  Victor  of  Rome,  from  Melito,  from  Caius  ; 
how  instructive  the  long  and  numerous  quotations  from  the  epistles  of  Dionysius  of  Alexandria  ! 
He  may  often  fail  to  appreciate  the  significance  of  the  events  which  he  records,  he  may  in  many 
cases  draw  unwarranted  conclusions  from  the  premises  which  he  states,  he  may  sometimes  misin- 
terpret his  documents  and  misunderstand  men  and  movements,  but  in  the  majority  of  cases  he 
presents  us  with  the  material  upon  which  to  form  our  own  judgments,  and  if  we  differ  with  him 
we  must  at  the  same  time  thank  him  for  the  data  which  have  enabled  us  independently  to  reach 
other  results. 

But  the  value  of  Eusebius'  Church  History  does  not  lie  solely  in  the  fact  that  it  contains  so 
many  original  sources  which  would  be  otherwise  unknown  to  us.  It  is  not  merely  a  thesaurus,  it 
is  a  history  in  the  truest  sense,  and  it  possesses  an  intrinsic  value  of  its  own,  independent  of  its 
quotations  from  other  works.  Eusebius  possessed  extensive  sources  of  knowledge  no  longer 
accessible  to  us.  1  Us  History  contains  the  results  of  his  extended  perusal  of  many  works  which 
are  now  irrecoverably  lost,  of  his  wide  acquaintance  with  the  current  traditions  of  his  day,  of  his 
familiar  intercourse  with  many  of  the  chief  men  of  the  age.  If  we  cut  out  all  the  documents 
which  he  quotes,  there  still  remains  an  extensive  history  whose  loss  would  leave  an  irreparable 
blank  in  our  knowledge  of  the  early  Church.  How  invaluable,  for  instance,  to  mention  but  one 
matter,  are  the  researches  of  our  author  in  regard  to  the  circulation  of  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament :  his  testimony  to  the  condition  of  the  canon  in  his  own  time,  and  to  the  more  or  less 
widespread  use  of  particular  writings  by  the  Fathers  of  preceding  centuries.  Great  as  is  the 
value  of  the  sources  which  Eusebius  quotes,  those  that  he  does  not  give  are  still  more  extensive, 
and  it  is  the  knowledge  gained  from  them  which  he  has  transmitted  to  us. 

The  worth  of  these  portions  of  his  History  must  depend  in  the  first  place  upon  the  extent  and 
reliability  of  his  sources,  and  in  the  second  place  upon  the  use  which  he  made  of  them. 

A  glance  at  the  list  of  his  authorities  given  in  the  index,  reveals  at  once  the  immense 
range  of  his  materials.  The  number  of  books  which  he  either  quotes  or  refers  to  as  read  is 
enormous.  When  to  these  are  added  the  works  employed  by  him  in  the  composition  of  his 
Prap.  Evang.,  as  well  as  the  great  number  which  he  must  have  perused,  but  does  not  mention, 
we  are  amazed  at  the  extent  of  his  reading.  He  must  have  been. a  voracious  reader  from  his 
earliest  years,  and  he  must  have  possessed  extraordinary  acquisitive  powers.  It  is  safe  to  say 
that  there  was  among  the  Fathers,  with  the  possible  exception  of  Origen,  no  more  learned  man 
than  he.  He  thus  possessed  one  of  the  primary  qualifications  of  the  historian.  And  yet  even  in 
this  respect  he  had  his  limitations.  He  seems  to  have  taken  no  pains  to  acquaint  himself  with  the 
works  of  heretics,  but  to  have  been  content  to  take  his  knowledge  of  them  at  second  hand.  And 
still  further,  he  was  sadly  ignorant  of  Latin  literature  and  of  the  Latin  Church  in  general  (see 
below,  p.  106);  in  fact,  we  must  not  expect  to  glean  from  his  History  a  very  thorough  or  extended 
knowledge  of  western  Christendom. 

But  his  sources  were  not  confined  to  literary  productions.  He  had  a  wide  acquaintance  with 
the  world,  and  he  was  enabled  to  pick  up  much  from  his  intercourse  with  other  men  and  with 
different  peoples  that  he  could  not  have  found  upon  the  shelves  of  the  Ca'sarean  or  of  any  other 


library.  Moreover,  he  had  access  to  the  archives  of  state,  and  gathered  from  them  much  informa- 
tion quite  inaccessible  to  most  men.  He  was  thus  peculiarly  fitted,  both  by  nature  and  by  cir- 
cumstances, for  the  task  of  acquiring  material,  the  first  task  of  the  genuine  historian. 

Hut  the  value  of  his  work  must  depend  in  the  second  place  upon  the  wisdom  and  honesty  with 
which  he  used  his  sources,  and  upon  the  faithfulness  and  accuracy  with  which  he  reproduced  the 
results  thus  reached.  We  are  therefore  led  to  enquire  as  lo  his  qualifications  for  this  part  of  his 

We  notice,  in  the  first  place,  that  he  was  very  diligent  in  the  use  of  his  sources.  Nothing  seems 
to  have  escaped  him  that  might  in  any  way  bear  upon  the  particular  subject  in  hand.  When  he 
informs  us  that  a  certain  author  nowhere  mentions  a  book  or  an  event,  he  is,  so  far  as  I  am 
aware,  never  mistaken.  \Vhen  we  reali/.e  how  many  works  he  read  entirely  through  for  the  sake 
of  securing  a  single  historical  notice,  and  how  many  more  he  must  have  read  without  finding  any- 
thing to  his  purpose,  we  are  impressed  with  his  untiring  diligence.  To-day,  with  our  convenient 
indexes,  and  with  the  references  at  hand  which  have  been  made  by  many  other  men  who  have 
studied  the  writings  of  the  ancients,  we  hardly  comprehend  what  an  amount  of  labor  the  pro- 
duction of  a  Ilistorv  like  Eusebius'  must  have  cost  him,  a  pioneer  in  that  kind  of  work. 

In  the  second  place,  we  are  compelled  to  admire  the  sagacity  which  our  author  displays  in  the 
selection  of  his  materials.  He  possessed  the  true  instinct  of  the  historian,  which  enabled  him  to 
pick  out  the  salient  points  and  to  present  to  the  reader  just  that  information  which  he  most 
desires.  We  shall  be  surprised  upon  examining  his  work  to  see  how  little  it  contains  which  it  is 
not  of  the  utmost  importance  for  the  student  of  early  Church  history  to  know,  and  how  shrewdly 
the  author  has  anticipated  most  of  the  questions  which  such  a  student  must  ask.  He  saw  what 
it  was  in  the  history  of  the  first  three  centuries  of  the  Church  which  posterity  would  most  desire 
to  know,  and  he  told  them.  His  wisdom  in  this  respect  is  all  the  more  remarkable  when  com- 
pared with  the  unwisdom  of  most  of  his  successors,  who  filled  their  works  with  legends  of  saints 
and  martyrs,  which,  however  fascinating  they  may  have  been  to  the  readers  of  that  age,  possess 
little  cither  of  interest  or  of  value  for  us.  When  he  wishes  to  give  us  a  glimpse  of  the  persecu- 
tions of  those  early  days,  his  historical  and  literary  instinct  leads  him  to  dwell  especially  upon  two 
thoroughly  representative  cases,  —  the  martyrdom  of  Polyearp  and  the  sufferings  of  the  churches  of 
Lyons  and  Vienne,  —  and  to  preserve  for  posterity  two  of  the  noblest  specimens  of  martyrological 
literature  which  the  ancient  Church  produced.  It  is  true  that  he  sometimes  erred  in  his  judg- 
ment as  to  the  wants  of  future  readers  ;  we  could  wish  that  he  had  been  somewhat  fuller  and 
clearer  on  many  ]>oints,  and  that  he  had  not  so  entirely  neglected  some  others;  but  on  the  whole 
I  am  of  the  opinion  that  few  historical  works,  ancient  or  modern,  have  in  the  same  compass 
better  fulfilled  their  mission  in  this  respect. 

In  the  third  place,  we  can  hardly  fail  to  be  impressed  by  the  wisdom  with  which  Eusebius 
discriminated  between  reliable  and  unreliable  sources.  Judged  by  the  modern  standard  he  may 
fall  short  as  a  literary  critic,  but  judged  by  the  standard  of  antiquity  he  must  be  given  a  very  high 
rank.  Few  indeed  are  the  historians  of  ancient  times,  secular  or  ecclesiastical,  who  can  compare 
with  Eusebius  for  sound  judgment  in  this  matter.  The  general  freedom  of  his  work  from  the 
fables  and  prodigies,  and  other  improbable  or  impossible  tales  which  disfigure  the  pages  of  the 
great  majority  even  of  the  soberest  of  ancient  historians,  is  one  of  its  most  marked  features.  He 
shows  himself  uncommonly  particular  in  demanding  good  evidence  for  the  circumstances  which 
he  records,  and  uncommonly  shrewd  in  detecting  spurious  and  unreliable  sources.  When  we 
remember  the  great  number  of  pseudonymous  works  which  were  current  in  his  day  we  are 
compelled  to  admire  his  care  and  his  discrimination.  Not  that  he  always  succeeded  in  detecting 
the  false.  More  than  once  he  was  sadly  at  fault  (as  for  instance  in  regard  to  the  Abgarus  corre- 
spondence and  Josephus'  testimony  to  Christ),  and  has  in  consequence  been  severely  denounced 
or  held  up  to  unsparing  ridicule  by  manv  modern  writers.  Puit  the  wonder  certainly  is  not  that 
he  erred  as  often  as  he  did,  but  that  he  did  not  err  oftener ;  not  that  he  was  sometimes  careless  in 


regard  to  the  reliability  of  his  sources,  but  that  he  was  ever  as  careful  as,  in  the  majority  of  cases, 
he  has  proved  himself  to  be.  In  fact,  comparing  him  with  other  writers  of  antiquity,  we  cannot 
commend  too  highly  the  care  and  the  skill  with  which  he  usually  discriminated  between  the  true 
and  the  false. 

In  the  fourth  place,  he  deserves  all  praise  for  his  constant  sincerity  and  unfailing  honesty.  1 
believe  that  emphasis  should  be  laid  upon  this  point  for  the  reason  that  Kusebius'  reputation  has 
often  suffered  sadly  in  consequence  of  the  unjust  imputations,  and  the  violent  accusations,  which 
it  was  for  a  long  time  the  fashion  to  make  against  him,  and  which  lead  many  still  to  treat  his 
statements  with  distrust,  and  his  character  with  contempt.  Gibbon's  estimate  of  his  honesty  is 
well  known  and  has  been  unquestioningly  accepted  in  many  quarters,  but  it  is  none  the  less 
unjust,  and  in  its  implications  quite  untrue  to  the  facts.  Eusebius  does  dwell  with  greater  fullness 
ui)on  the  virtues  than  upon  the  vices  of  the  early  Church,  upon  its  glory  than  upon  its  shame, 
and  he  tells  us  directly  that  it  is  his  intention  so  to  do  (//.  E.  VIII.  2),  but  he  never  undertakes 
to  conceal  the  sins  of  the  Christians,  and  the  chapter  immediately  preceding  contains  a  denun- 
ciation of  their  corruptness  and  wickedness  uttered  in  no  faint  terms.  In  fact,  in  the  face  of 
these  and  other  candid  passages  in  his  work,  it  is  the  sheerest  injustice  to  charge  him  with  dis- 
honesty and  unfairness  because  he  prefers,  as  almost  any  Christian  historian  must,  to  dwell  with 
greater  fullness  of  detail  upon  the  bright  than  upon  the  dark  side  of  the  picture.  Scientific, 
Eusebius'  method,  in  this  respect,  doubtless  is  not ;  but  dishonest,  no  one  has  a  right  to  call  it. 
The  most  severe  attack  which  has  been  made  upon  Eusebius  in  recent  years  is  found  in  an  article 
by  Jachmann  (see  below,  p.  55).  The  evident  animus  which  runs  through  his  entire  paper  is 
very  unpleasant ;  the  conclusions  which  he  draws  are,  to  say  the  least,  strained.  I  cannot  enter 
here  into  a  consideration  of  his  positions  ;  most  of  them  are  examined  below  in  the  notes  upon 
the  various  passages  which  he  discusses.  The  whole  article,  like  most  similar  attacks,  proceeds 
upon  the  supposition  that  our  author  is  guilty,  and  then  undertakes  simply  to  find  evidence 
of  that  which  is  already  presupposed.  I  submit  that  few  writers  could  endure  such  an  ordeal. 
If  Eusebius  is  tried  according  to  the  principles  of  common  justice,  and  of  sound  literary  criti- 
cism, I  am  convinced,  after  long  and  careful  study,  that  his  sincerity  and  honesty  of  purpose 
cannot  be  impeached.  The  particular  instances  which  have  been  urged  as  proving  his  dishonesty 
will  be  discussed  below  in  the  notes  upon  the  respective  passages,  and  to  those  the  reader  is 
referred  (compare  especially  pp.  88,  98,  100,  in,  112,  114,  127,  194). 

Eusebius'  critics  are  wont  to  condemn  him  severely  for  what  they  are  pleased  to  call  the 
dishonesty  displayed  by  him  in  his  Vita  Constantini.  Such  critics  forget,  apparently,  that  that 
work  pretends  to  be,  not  a  history,  but  a  panegyric.  Judging  it  as  such,  I  am  unable  to  find 
anything  in  it  which  leads  me  to  entertain  for  a  moment  a  suspicion  of  the  author's  honesty.  It 
is  true  that  Eusebius  emphasizes  the  Emperor's  good  qualities,  and  fails  to  mention  the  darker 
spots  in  his  character;  but  so  far  as  I  am  aware  he  misstates  no  facts,  and  does  only  what 
those  who  eulogize  deceased  friends  are  accustomed  to  do  the  world  over.  For  a  discussion 
of  this  matter  the  reader  is  referred  to  the  prolegomena  of  Dr.  Richardson,  pp.  46  7  sq.  of  this 
volume.  I  am  pleased  to  learn  from  him  that  his  study  of  the  Vita  has  shown  him  nothing  which 
justifies  the  charge  of  dishonesty  brought  against  Eusebius. 

One  of  the  most  decisive  marks  of  veracity  upon  the  part  of  our  author  is  the  frankness  with 
which  he  confesses  his  lack  of  knowledge  upon  any  subject  (cf.  IV.  5),  and  the  care  with  which 
he  distinguishes  between  the  different  kinds  of  evidence  upon  which  he  bases  his  statements. 
How  frequently  the  phrases  Aoyos  l\u,  <£uat',  Xcyerui,  &c.,  occur  in  connection  with  accounts  which 
a  less  scrupulous  historian  would  not  hesitate  to  record  as  undoubted  fact.  How  particular 
he  is  to  mention  his  sources  for  any  unusual  or  startling  event.  If  the  authorities  seem  to  him 
quite  inadequate,  he  simply  omits  all  reference  to  an  occurrence  which  most  of  his  con- 
temporaries and  successors  would  have  related  with  the  greatest  gusto  ;  if  the  testimony  seems 
to  him  strong,  he  records  the  circumstance  and  expressly  mentions  his  authority,  whether  oral 

VOL.  i. 


tradition,  the   testimony  of  eye-witnesses,  or  written   accounts,  and   we  are  thus   furnished    the 
material  from  which  to  form  our  own  judgments. 

He  is  often  blamed  by  modern  writers  for  what  they  are  pleased  to  call  his  excessive 
credulity.  Those  who  accuse  him  thus  seem  to  forget  that  he  lived  in  the  fourth,  not  in  the 
nineteenth  century.  That  he  believed  many  things  which  we  now  declare  to  be  incredible  is 
perfectly  true,  but  that  he  believed  things  that  other  Christians  of  his  day  pronounced  incredible 
is  not  true.  Judged,  in  fact,  according  to  the  standard  of  his  age  —  and  indeed  of  eleven 
succeeding  centuries  — he  must  be  pronounced  remarkably  free  from  the  fault  of  over-credulity, 
in  truth  uncommonly  skeptical  in  his  attitude  toward  the  marvelous.  Not  that  he  denies  the 
occurrence  of  prodigies  and  wonders  in  his  own  and  other  ages,  but  that  he  always  demands  the 
strongest  testimony  before  he  allows  himself  to  be  convinced  of  their  truth.  Compare,  e.g.,  the 
care  with  which  he  gives  his  authorities  for  the  anecdote  in  regard  to  the  Thundering  Legion 
(V.  5),  and  his  final  suspension  of  judgment  in  the  matter;  compare  also  the  emphasis  which 
lie  lays  upon  the  personal  testimony  of  the  Emperor  in  the  matter  of  the  appearance  of  the  sign 
of  the  cross  in  the  sky  (Vita  Const.  I.  28  sq.),  a  phenomenon  which  he  himself  tells  us  that  he 
would  have  believed  upon  no  ordinary  evidence.  His  conduct  in  this  matter  is  a  sign  rather 
of  a  skepticism  uncommon  in  his  age  than  of  an  excessive  and  unusual  credulity.  Cibbon 
himself  gives  our  author  due  credit  in  this  respect,  when  he  speaks  of  his  character  as  "  less 
tinctured  with  credulity,  and  more  practiced  in  the  arts  of  courts,  than  that  of  almost  any  of  his 
contemporaries  "  {Decline  and  Fall,  chap.  XVI.). 

On  the  other  hand,  Eusebius  as  an  historian  had  many  very  grave  faults  which  it  is  not  my 
wish  in  the  least  to  palliate  or  conceal.  One  of  the  most  noticeable  of  these  is  his  complete  lack 
of  any  conception  of  historiography  as  a  fine  art.  His  work  is  interesting  and  instructive  because 
of  the  facts  which  it  records,  but  that  interest  is  seldom  if  ever  enhanced  by  his  mode  of  presen- 
tation. There  is  little  effective  grouping,  almost  no  sense  of  perspective,  utter  ignorance  of 
the  art  of  suggesting  by  a  single  line  or  phrase  a  finished  picture  of  a  man  or  of  a  movement. 
He  was  not,  in  other  words,  a  Thucydides  or  a  Tacitus;  but  the  world  has  seen  not  many  such 

as  they. 

A  second  and  still  more  serious  fault  is  our  author's  want  of  depth,  if  I  may  so  express  myself, 
his  failure  to  look  beneath  the  surface  and  to  grasp  the  real  significance  of  things,  to  trace  the 
influence  of  opinions  and  events.  We  feel  this  defect  upon  every  page.  We  read  the  annals, 
but  we  are  conscious  of  no  masterful  mind  behind  them,  digesting  and  comprehending  them  into 
one  organic  and  imposing  whole.  This  radical  weakness  in  our  author's  method  is  revealed 
perhaps  most  clearly  in  his  superficial  and  transcendental  treatment  of  heretics  and  heresies, 
his  failure  to  appreciate  their  origin  and  their  bearing  upon  the  progress  of  Christian  thought. 
Of  a  development  in  theology,  in  fact,  he  knows  nothing,  and  hence  his  work  lacks  utterly 
that  which  we  now  look  upon  as  the  most  instructive  part  of  Church  history,  —  the  history 
of  doctrine. 

In  the  third  place,  severe  censure  must  be  passed  upon  our  author  for  his  carelessness  and 
inaccuracy  in  matters  of  chronology.  We  should  expect  that  one  who  had  produced  the  most 
extensive  chronological  work  that  had  ever  been  given  to  the  world,  would  be  thoroughly  at 
home  in  that  province,  but  in  truth  his  chronology  is  the  most  defective  feature  of  his  work. 
The  difficulty  is  chiefly  due  to  his  inexcusable  carelessness,  we  might  almost  say  slovenliness,  in 
the  use  of  different  and  often  contradictory  sources  of  information.  Instead  of  applying  himself 
to  the  discrepancies,  and  endeavoring  to  reach  the  truth  by  carefully  weighing  the  respective 
merits  of  the  sources,  or  by  testing  their  conclusions  in  so  far  as  tests  are  possible,  he  adopts  in 
many  cases  the  results  of  both,  apparently  quite  unsuspicious  of  the  confusion  consequent  upon 
such  a  course.  In  fact,  the  critical  spirit  which  actuates  him  in  dealing  with  many  other  matters 
seems  to  leave  him  entirely  when  he  is  concerned  with  chronology  ;  and  instead  of  proceeding  with 
the  care  and  circumspection  of  an  historian,  he  accepts  what  he  finds  with  the  unquestioning  faith 


of  a  child.  There  is  no  case  in  which  he  can  be  convicted  of  disingenuousness,  but  at  times  his 
obtuseness  is  almost  beyond  belief.  An  identity  of  names,  or  a  resemblance  between  events 
recorded  by  different  authors,  will  often  be  enough  to  lead  him  all  unconsciously  to  himself  into 
the  most  absurd  and  contradictory  conclusions.  Instances  of  this  may  be  seen  in  Book  I.  chap. 
5,  and  in  II.  n.  His  confusion  in  regard  to  the  various  Antonines  (see  especially  the  note  on  the 
preface  to  Book  V.)  is  not  at  all  unusual  among  the  writers  of  his  day,  and  in  view  of  the  frequent 
and  perplexing  use  of  the  same  names  by  the  different  emperors,  might  be  quite  excusable  in  a 
less  scholarly  man  than  Eusebius,  but  in  his  case  it  is  evidence  of  unpardonable  want  of  care. 
This  serious  defect  in  our  author's  method  is  not  peculiar  to  him.  Many  historians,  critical 
almost  to  a  fault  in  most  matters,  accept  the  received  chronology  without  question,  and  build 
upon  it  as  if  it  were  the  surest  of  foundations.  Such  a  consideration  does  not  excuse  Kusebius ; 
it  relieves  him,  however,  of  the  stigma  of  peculiarity. 

Finally,  the  character  of  the  History  is  greatly  impaired  by  our  author's  desultory  method. 
This  is  a  characteristic  of  his  literary  work  in  general,  and  was  referred  to  in  the  previous 
chapter.  All  his  works  are  marred  by  it,  but  few  suffer  more  noticeably  than  the  History. 
The  author  does  not  confine  himself  as  strictly  as  he  should  to  the  logical  limits  of  the  subject 
which  he  is  treating,  but  allows  himself  to  be  led  away  from  the  main  point  by  the  suggestions 
that  pour  in  upon  him  from  all  sides.  As  Lightfoot  remarks,  "  We  have  not  unfrequently  to  pick 
out  from  various  parts  of  his  work  the  notices  bearing  on  one  definite  and  limited  subject.  He 
relates  a  fact,  or  quotes  an  authority  bearing  upon  it,  in  season  or  out  of  season,  according  as 
it  is  recalled  to  his  memory  by  some  accidental  connexion."  This  unfortunate  habit  of  Kusebius' 
is  one  into  which  men  of  wide  learning  are  very  apt  to  fall.  The  richness  of  their  acquisitions 
embarrasses  them,  and  the  immense  number  of  facts  in  their  possession  renders  a  comprehension 
of  them  all  into  one  logical  whole  very  difficult;  and  yet  unless  the  facts  be  thus  comprehended, 
unless  they  be  thoroughly  digested  and  arranged,  the  result  is  confusion  and  obscurity.  To 
exclude  is  as  necessary  as  to  include,  if  one  would  write  history  with  the  highest  measure  of 
success ;  to  exclude  rigidly  at  one  time  what  it  is  just  as  necessary  to  include  at  another.  To 
men  like  Eusebius  there  is  perhaps  nothing  more  difficult  than  this.  Only  a  mind  as  intensive 
as  it  is  extensive,  with  a  grasp  as  strong  as  its  reach  is  wide,  can  accomplish  it,  and  few  are  the 
minds  that  are  blessed  with  both  qualities.  Few  are  the  writers  whose  histories  stand  upon  our 
shelves  that  fail  not  sadly  in  the  one  or  in  the  other ;  and  in  few  perhaps  does  the  failure  seem 
more  marked  than  in  our  author. 

And  yet,  though  it  is  apparent  that  the  value  of  Eusebius'  work  is  greatly  impaired  by  its 
desultory  method  of  treatment,  I  am  confident  that  the  defect  is  commonly  exaggerated.  The 
paragraph  which  Lightfoot  quotes  from  Westcott  on  this  subject  leaves  a  false  impression. 
Altogether  too  often  our  author  introduces  irrelevant  matters,  and  repeats  himself  when  repetition 
"mars  the  symmetry  of  his  work";  and  yet  on  the  whole  he  follows  a  fairly  well  ordered  plan 
with  fairly  good  success.  He  endeavors  to  preserve  a  strictly  chronological  sequence  in  his 
arrangement  of  the  books,  and  he  adheres  for  the  most  part  to  his  purpose.  Though  there  may 
be  disorder  and  confusion  within  the  various  periods,  for  instance  within  the  apostolic  age,  the 
age  of  Trajan,  of  Hadrian,  of  the  Antonines,  &c.,  yet  the  periods  themselves  are  kept  reasonably 
distinct  from  one  another,  and  having  finished  his  account  of  one  of  them  the  author  seldom 
returns  to  it.  Even  in  his  treatment  of  the  New  Testament  canon,  which  is  especially  desultory, 
he  says  most  of  what  he  has  to  say  about  it  in  connection  with  the  apostles  themselves,  and 
before  passing  on  to  the  second  century.  I  would  not  overlook  the  exceeding  flagrancy  of  his 
desultoriness  and  repetitiousness  in  his  accounts  of  the  writings  of  many  of  the  Fathers,  especially 
of  the  two  Clements,  and  yet  I  would  emphasize  the  fact  that  he  certainly  had  an  outline  plan 
which  he  designed  to  follow,  and  for  which  due  credit  should  be  given  him.  PTe  compares 
favorably  in  this  respect  with  at  least  most  of  the  writers  of  antiquity.  Only  with  our  modern 
method  of  dividing  history  into  periods,  separated  by  natural  boundary  lines,  and  of  handling  it 


under  clearly  defined  rubrics,  have  we  become  able  wholly  to  avoid  the  confused  and  illogical 
treatment  of  Eusebms  and  of  others  like  him. 

§  4.     Edition';  and  Versions. 

The  ori-inal  Greek  of  Eusebms1  History  has  been  published  in  many  editions. 

r    -\\*  cditio  firinctps  is  that  of  Robert  Stephanus,  which  appeared  at  Pans  m  1544,  and 
again,  with  a  few  changes,  and  with  the  Latin  translation  of  Christophorsonus  and  the  not 
SuiTridus  Petrus,  at  Geneva  in  1612. 

2  1  Icnr  Valesius  (de  Valois)  published  his  first  edition  of  the  Greek  text,  with  a  new  Latni  trans- 
lation and  with  copious  critical  and  explanatory  notes,  at  Paris  in  1659.  His  edition  was  reprinted 
at  Mainz  in  1672,  but  the  reprint  is  full  of  errors.  In  1678,  after  Valesius'  death,  a  rev.sed 
edition  was  issued  at  Paris,  winch  in  1695  was  reprinted  with  some  corrections  at  Amsterdam. 
In  1720  Valesius'  edition  of  Eusebius,  together  with  his  edition  of  Socrates,  Sozomen,  and 
other  (keek  historians,  was  rcpublished  at  Cambridge  by  William  Reading,  in  three  fol.o  volumes. 
This  is  the  best  edition  of  Valesius,  the  commentary  being  supplemented  by  MS.  notes  which 
he  had  left  among  his  papers,  and  increased  by  large  additions  from  other  writers  under  the 
head  of  Variorum.  A  reprint  of  Reading's  edition  was  issued  in  1746-174.%  but  according 
to  Heinichen  it  is  not  as  accurate  as  that  of  1720.  For  the  elucidation  of  Eusebius'  History 
we  owe  more  to  Valesius  than  to  any  other  man.  His  edition  of  the  text  was  an  immense  advance 
upon  that  of  Stephanus,  and  has  formed  the  basis  of  all  subsequent  editions,  while  his  notes 
are  a  perfect  storehouse  of  information  from  which  all  annotators  of  Eusebius  have  extensively 
drawn.  Migne's  edition  (Opera,  II.  45~9O6)  is  a  reprint  of  Valesius'  edition  of  1659. 

3.  F.  A.  Stroth  (Halle,  1 779).     A  new  edition  of  the  Greek  text,  of  which,  however,  only  the 
first  volume  appeared,  comprising  Books  I.-VII. 

4.  E.  Zimmermann  (Frankfort-on-the-Main,  1822).     A  new  edition  of  the  Greek  text,  con- 
taining also  the  Latin  translation  of  Valesius,  and  a  few  critical  notes. 

5.  F.  A.  Heinichen  (Leipzig,  1827  and  1828).     An  edition  of  the  Greek  text  in  three  volumes, 
with  a  reprint  of  the  entire  commentary  of  Valesius,  and  with  the  addition  of  Variorum  notes.    The 
critical  apparatus,  printed  in  the  third  volume,  is  very  meager.     A  few  valuable  excursuses  close 
the  work.     Forty  years  later  Ileinichen  published  a  second  edition  of  the  History  in  his  Euscbn 
Pamphi/i  Script*  Historica  (Lips.  1868-1870,  3  vols.).    The  first  volume  contains  the  Greek  text 
of  the  History,  with  valuable  prolegomena,  copious  critical  apparatus  and  very  useful  indices  ;  the 
second  volume  contains  the  Vita  Constantini,  the  Pancgyricus  or  DC  laudibus  Constantini,  and 
Constantine's  O ratio  ad  Sanctorum  coctum,  also  accompanied  with  critical  apparatus  and  indices  ; 
the  third  volume  contains  an  extensive  commentary  upon  the  works  included  in  the  first  two 
volumes,  together  with  twenty-nine  valuable  excursuses.     This  entirely  supersedes  the  first,  and 
is  on  the  whole  the  most  complete  and  useful  edition  of  the  History  which  we  have.     The  editor 
made  diligent  use  of  the  labors  of  his  predecessors,  especially  of  Laemmer's.      He  did  no  inde- 
pendent work,  however,  in  the  way  of  collecting  material  for  the  criticism  of  the  text,  and  was 
deficient  in  critical  judgment.     As  a  consequence  his  text  has  often  to  be  amended  on  the  basis 
of  the  variant  readings,  which  he  gives  with  great  fullness.      His  commentary  is  made  up  largely 
of  quotations  from  Valesius  and  other  writers,  and  is  valuable  for  the  material  it  thus  contains  as 
well  as  for  its  references  to  other  works.     It  labors  under  the  same  incompleteness,  however,  that 
mars  Valesius'  commentary,  and,  moreover,  contains  almost  nothing  of  independent  value. 

6.  Edward   Burton,    D.I).,   Regius    Professor   of   Divinity   at   Oxford,   had   prepared   before 
his   death   a   Greek   Text   of  the  Ecclesiastical    History,   and  this   was  issued   by  the   Oxford 
University  Press  in  two  volumes  in  i83<S,  with  a  very  extensive  critical  apparatus  appended 
based  upon  that  of  Valesius.      In  1842  the  Oxford  Press  issued  in  two  volumes,  uniform  with 
Burton's  edition  of  the  text,  the  full  notes  of  Valesius  and  Heinichen.     These  volumes  have 

THE    LIFE    AND    WRITINGS    OF    EUSEHiUS.  53 

no  introduction  or  prefatory  note,  but  it  is  understood  that  the  editorial  work  was  entrusted 
to  Mr.  Osbornc  Gordon  of  Christ  Church.  The  same  Press  also  in  1845  issued  in  a  single 
volume  for  the  use  of  students,  and  again,  in  1856,  Burton's  text  alone,  without  the  critical 
apparatus.  Burton  made  large  contributions  to  the  criticism  of  the  text,  and  had  he  lived  to 
superintend  the  issue  of  these  successive  editions,  would  perhaps  have  succeeded  in  giving  us 
a.  better  text  than  any  which  we  now  possess,  for  he  was  a  far  more  sagacious  critic  than 
Heinichen.  As  it  is,  his  edition  is  marred  by  numerous  imperfections,  largely  caused  by  the 
inaccuracy  of  those  who  collated  MSS.  for  him.  His  text,  however,  has  been  reprinted  at 
Oxford,  first  in  1872,  and  again  in  1881,  under  the  careful  supervision  of  Canon  Bright,  1 ).!)., 
Regius  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History.  The  typography  of  these  reprints  is  superb,  and 
the  admirable  plan  is  followed  of  discarding  quotation  marks  and  printing  all  citations  in 
smaller  type,  thus  making  plain  to  the  eye  at  a  glance  what  is  Kusebius'  own  and  what  is 
another's.  The  text  is  preceded  by  a  very  interesting  and  graphic  life  of  the  historian.  This 
is  a  very  handy  edition,  and  for  school  use  is  unsurpassed. 

7.  Schwegler  (Tubingen,  1852,  in  one  volume).     The  Greek  text  with  critical  apparatus,  but 
without  translation  and  notes.     An  accurate  and  useful  edition. 

8.  Lacmmer  (Schaffhausen,   1859-1862).     The  Greek  text  in  one  volume,  with  extensive 
critical  apparatus,  but  without   explanatory  notes.     Laemmer  had  unusual  opportunities  for  col- 
lecting material,  and  has  made  larger  additions  to  the  critical  apparatus  than  any  one  else.     His 
edition  was  issued,  however,  in  a  most  slovenly  manner,  and  swarms  with  mistakes.     Great  care 
should  therefore  be  exercised  in  the  use  of  it. 

9.  Finally  must  be  mentioned  the  text  of  I)indorf  (Lips.  1871),  which  is  published  in  the 
Teubner  series,  and  like  most  of  the  volumes  of  that  series  is  handy  and  convenient,  but  of  little 
value  to  the  critical  student. 

There  are  few  writings  of  the  Fathers  which  more  sadly  need  and  more  richly  deserve  a  new 
critical  edition  than  the  History  of  Eusebius.  The  material  for  the  formation  of  a  reliable  text  is 
extensive  and  accessible,  but  editors  have  contented  themselves  too  much  in  the  past  with  the 
results  of  their  predecessors'  labors,  and  unfortunately  those  labors  have  not  always  been  accurate 
and  thorough.  As  a  consequence  a  new  and  more  careful  collation  of  most  of  the  MSS.  of  the 
original,  together  with  those  of  Rufinus'  translation,  must  lie  at  the  foundation  of  any  new  work 
which  is  to  be  done  in  this  line.  The  puV  cation  of  the  Syriac  version  will  doubtless  furnish  much 
valuable  material  which  the  next  editor  c  the  History  will  be  able  to  use  to  advantage.  Anything 
less  than  such  a  thorough  work  as  I  ha1  j  indicated  will  be  of  little  worth.  Unless  the  new  edition 
be  based  upon  extensive  and  incle  undent  labors,  it  will  be  little  if  any  improvement  upon 
that  of  Heinichen.  It  is  to  be  hoped  that  a  critical  text,  up  to  the  standard  of  those  of  some 
other  patristic  works  which  we  already  possess,  may  yet  be  issued,  which  shall  give  us  this,  one 
of  the  noblest  productions  of  the  ancient  Church,  in  a  fitting  and  satisfactory  form. 

Translations  of  Eusebius'  History  are  very  numerous.  Probably  the  earliest  of  all  is  the  ancient 
Syriac  version  which  is  preserved  in  great  part  in  two  MSS.,  one  of  which  is  at  St.  Petersburg  and 
contains  the  entire  History  with  the  exception  of  Book  VI.  and  large  portions  of  Books  V.  and 
VII.  The  MS.  is  dated  462  A.D.  (see  Wright's  description  of  it  in  his  Catalogue  of  the  Syriac 
MSS.  in  the  British  Museum  acquired  .since  the  year  1838,  Part  III.  p.  xv.  sq.).  The  second 
MS.  is  in  the  British  Museum,  and  contains  Books  I.-V.,  with  some  mutilations  at  the  beginning 
of  the  first  book.  The  MS.  dates  from  the  sixth  century  (see  Wright's  description  of  it  in  his 
Catalogue ',  p.  1039).  From  these  MSS.  Wright  was  engaged  in  preparing  an  edition  of  the  Syriac, 
which  remained  unfinished  at  the  time  of  his  death.  Whether  he  left  his  work  in  such  shape  that 
it  can  soon  be  issued  by  some  one  else  I  have  not  yet  learned.  The  version  was  probably  made 
at  a  very  early  date,  possibly  within  the  lifetime  of  Eusebius  himself,  though  of  that  we  can  have 
no  assurance.  I  understand  that  it  confirms  in  the  main  the  Greek  text  as  now  printed  in  our 
best  editions. 


The  original  Latin  version  was  made  by  Rufmus  in  the  early  years  of  the  fifth  century.  He 
translated  only  nine  books,  and  added  to  them  two  of  his  own,  in  which  he  brought  the  history 
down  to  the  death  of  Thcodosius  the  Great.  He  allowed  himself  his  customary  license  in  trans- 
lating, and  yet,  although  his  version  is  by  no  means  exact,  it  is  one  of  our  best  sources  for  a 
knowledge  of  the  true  text  of  Eusebius,  for  it  is  possible,  in  many  doubtful  cases  where  our  MSS. 
are  hopelessly  divided,  to  ascertain  from  his  rendering  what  stood  in  the  original  Greek. 
The  version  of  Rufmus  had  a  large  circulation,  and  became  in  the  Western  Church  a  substitute 
for  the  original  throughout  the  Middle  Ages.  It  was  first  printed,  according  to  Fabricius 
(tt.  p.  59),  in  1476  at  Rome,  afterward  a  great  many  times  there  and  elsewhere1.  The  first 
critical  edition,  which  still  remains  the  best,  is  that  of  Cacciari  (Rome,  1740),  which  has  become 
rare,  and  is  very  difficult  to  find.  A  new  edition  is  a  great  desideratum.  An  important  work 
upon  Rufmus'  version  is  Kimmel's  DC  Ritfino  Eiiscbii  Interprcte,  Gerse,  1838. 

A  new  Latin  translation,  by  Wolfgang  Musculus,  was  published  in  Basle,  in  1549,  and  again 
in  ISS7j  I562,  and  1611,  according  to  Fabricius  (Bibl.  Gr.  VI.  p.  60).  I  have  myself  seen  only 
the  edition  of  1562. 

Still  another  Latin  version,  from  the  hand  of  Christophorsonus,  was  published  at  Louvain  in 
1569.  This  is  the  only  edition  of  Christophorsonus  which  I  have  seen,  but  I  have  notices  of 
Cologne  editions  of  1570,  1581  and  1612,  and  of  a  Paris  edition  of  1571.  According  to  Fabri- 
cius the  Paris  edition,  and  according  to  Brunet  the  Cologne  edition  of  1581,  contain  the  notes  of 
Suffridus  Petrus.  A  revision  of  Christophorsonus'  version  is  said  by  Cruse  to  have  been  published 
by  Curterius,  but  I  have  not  seen  it,  nor  am  I  aware  of  its  date. 

A  later  edition  of  the  series  of  the  Church  Historians  was  edited  byGrynasus,  and  apparently 
was  first  published  at  Basle  in  1611  2.  According  to  the  title-page  it  was  '  latine  .  .  .  partim 
scripta,  partim  e  grreco,  .  .  .  W.  Musculo  3,  J.  Camerario,  et  J.  Christophorsono  conversa,  et  per 
J.  ].  Grynrcum  illustruta.'  From  this  Grynasus  has  been  credited  with  making  a  new  translation 
of  the  Fcclesiastical  History  of  Kusebius,  which  forms  one  of  the  series  contained  in  the  volume. 
The  translation  of  Valesius,  which  was  first  published  in  1659  (see  ante,  p.  52),  was  a  great 
improvement  upon  all  that  had  preceded  it,  and  has  been  many  times  reprinted  in  other 
editions  of  Eusebius  as  well  as  in  his  own. 

The  first  German  translation  was  published  by  Caspar  Hedio.  The  earliest  edition 
which  has  been  noticed  (and  a  copy  may  be  seen  in  the  British  Museum)  is  dated  1530. 
Later  editions  of  1545  and  1558  are  preserved  there.  But  the  copy  I  have  seen 
is  dated  1582,  and  it  comprises  only  nine  books  of  Eusebius,  supplemented  by  the  two 
of  Rufinus.  The  title  runs  as  follows  :  Chronica,  das  ist:  wahrhaffige  Bcschreibunge  allcr  alfcn 
Christlichcn  Kirchcn ;  zum  ersten,  die  hist,  eccles.  Eusebii  Pamphili  Cassariensis,  Eilff  Bticher ; 
zum  anclern,  die  hist,  eccles.  tripartita  Sozomeni,  Socratis  und  Theocloreti,  Zwolff  Bticher ;  zum 
dritten  die  hist,  eccles.  sampt  andern  treffenlichen  Geschichten,  die  zuvor  in  Teutscher  Sprache 
wenig  gelesen  sind,  auch  Zwolff  Biicher.  Von  der  Zeit  an  da  die  hist,  cedes,  tripartita  aufhb'ret : 
das  ist,  von  der  jarzal  an,  vierhundert  nach  Christi  geburt,  biss  auff  das  jar  MDXLV,  durch 
D.  Caspar  Hedion  zu  Strassburg  verteutscht  und  zusamen  getragen.  Getruckt  zu  Franckfurt  am 
Mayn,  im  jar  1582. 

A  copy  consisting  of  128  leaves,  double  column,  with  40  lines  :  British  Museum,  consists  of  171  leaves,  and  is  printed  at  Mantua 

by  J.   Schallus  in   1479.     Editions  of  1490  at  Speyer  ;    of  1497  at 
Paris  ;    and   (apparently)  two   of   1500  at  Strasburg,   may  also  be 

to  a  column,  p 
at  Strasburg, 
and  is  ascribe 
tion  an  cditi'  i 
printed  with  t 
at  Utrecht,  d; 
a  copy  is  in  tl 

inted  in  Gothic  letter,  apparently  by  II.  Eggesteyni 
ut  without  date,  is  to  he  seen  in  the  British  Museum, 
in  their  catalogue  to  1473.  Brunet  and  others  men- 
consisting  of  204  leaves,  with  31  lines  to  a  page, 
ic  type  of  Nicolas  Ketelacr  and  Gerard  de  Lecmpt 
ted  1474.  The  edition  printed  at  Koine  (of  which 


2  Hoffman,  however,  gives  an  earlier  edition,  edited  by  Grynaeus, 
as  printed   at    Basic    in    1570;     but   no  confirmatory   evidence    has 

been  observed. 

e  British  Museum),  ends  with  folio  218,  and  has  for  3  Tl,e  mcntion  of  the  name  of  Musculus  here  in  the  title-page  is 

the  colophon,   "  Millesimo  exec  i.xxvi.   Die  xv  Maii.     P.M.    Sixti    probably  the  authority  for  Fabricius  noting  an  edition  by  Musculus 
quarti  :    anno  ejus   ijuinto   complctum   est   hoc  opus   Rome."     The  I   in  1611. 
next  known  edition,  of  which  three  copies  are  to  be  found  in  the 


A  second  German  translation  of  the  entire  History  (with  the  exception  of  the  Martyrs  of 
Palestine,  and  the  Oration  on  the  Building  of  the  Churches,  X.  4),  together  with  the  Life  of 
Cons  tan  tine,  was  published  by  F.  A.  Stroth  in  Quedlinburg  in  1777,  in  two  volumes.  Stroth 
prefaced  the  translation  with  a  very  valuable  Life  of  Eusebius,  and  added  a  number  of  excellent 
notes  of  his  own.  The  translation  is  reasonably  accurate. 

A  much  more  elegant  German  version  (including  the  Oration,  but  omitting  the  Martyrs  of 
Pales  fine}  was  published  by  Gloss  in  Stuttgart  in  1839,  in  one  volume.  This  is  in  my  opinion 
the  best  translation  of  the  History  that  exists.  Its  style  is  admirable,  but  pure  German  idiom  is 
sometimes  secured  at  the  expense  of  faithfulness.  In  fact  the  author  has  aimed  to  produce  a 
free,  rather  than  a  literal  translation,  and  has  occasionally  allowed  himself  to  depart  too  far 
from  the  original.  A  few  brief  notes,  most  of  them  taken  from  Valesius  or  Stroth,  accompany 
the  translation. 

More  recently  a  German  translation  has  been  published  by  Stigloher  (Kempten,  1880)  in  the 
Kempten  Bibliothek  der  Kirchenvater.  It  purports  to  be  a  new  translation,  but  is  practically 
nothing  more  than  a  poorly  revised  edition  of  Gloss'  version.  The  changes  which  are  made  are 
seldom  improvements. 

Fabricius  mentions  a  French  translation  by  Claudius  Seysselius,  but  does  not  give  the  date  of 
it,  and  I  have  not  myself  seen  it.  Dr.  Richardson,  however,  informs  me  that  he  has  a  copy  of 
this  translation  (which  is  from  the  Latin,  not  from  the  Greek)  bearing  the  following  title  :  L'JIis- 
toire  ecclesiastique  translate  de  Latin  en  Francois,  par  M.  Claude  de  Seysscl,  evesque  lors  de  Mar- 
seille, et  depuis  archevesque  de  Thurin.  Paris,  1532  [or  '33], /^/.4  He  informs  me  also  that 
there  exist  editions  of  the  years  1537  and  1567. 

More  than  a  century  later  appeared  a  new  French  translation  by  Louis  Cousin,  bearing  the 
following  title  :  Histoire  de  r  Eglise  ecrite  par  Euscbe  de  Ccsarce,  So  crate,  Sozomcne,  Theodoret 
et  Evagre,  avec  I'abrege  de  Philostorge  par  Photius,  ct  de  Theodore  par  Nicephore  Calliste.  Paris, 
1675-1676.  4  vol.  4°.  Another  edition  appeared  in  Holland  in  1686,  5  vol.  12°. 

A  Dutch  edition  with  the  title,  "Die  Historic  diemen  heel  Kcclesiastica  .  .  .  .  overghesedt 
in  onser  duytscher  spraken,"  was  issued  by  "Couaert  van  der  Haghen,  Tantwerpen,  1534." 
Another  Dutch  edition,  by  Abr.  Arent  van  der  Meersch,  was  also  published  in  410.  at  Amster- 
dam in  1749. 

The  first  Italian  translation  seems  to  have  been  made  by  Bened.  Egione,  and  to  have  been 
printed  at  Venice  by  Michele  Tramezzino  in  1547. 

The  first  English  translation  bore  the  title,  "  The  Auncient  Ecclesiastical!  Histories  of  the 

first  six  hundred  years  after  Christ All  which  authors  are  faithfully  translated  out  of  the 

Greeke  tongue  by  M.  Hanmer."  The  first  edition  was  issued  by  T.  Vautrollier,  London,  fol., 
1577.  The  next  1585,  by  the  same.  The  third  edition,  'corrected  and  amended,'  was  issued 
by  R.  Field,  London,  1607  ;  while  another  edition,  from  the  same  publisher,  bears  the  date  of 
1619.  The  fourth  edition  'corrected'  (to  which  was  added  the  life  of  Constantine,  translated 
by  Wye  Saltonstall)  was  issued  in  parts  by  G.  Miller  in  16365.  A  fifth  edition  appeared  in 
1650,  and  a  sixth  revised,  corrected  and  enlarged  in  1663. 

The  above  translations,  considerably  revised,  were  republished  at  Cambridge  by  John 
Hayes  in  1683  6.  The  book  bore  the  title  of  "The  History  of  the  Church  from  our  Lord's 
Incarnation  to  the  twelfth  year  of  the  Emperor  Mauricius  Tiberius  ....  as  it  is  written  in  Greek 
by  Eusebius  Socrates  Scholasticus  ....  and  Evagrius  Scholasticus.  Made  English  from  that 
edition  of  those  historians  which  Valesius  published  at  Paris  in  the  years  1659,  1668,  and 

4  According  to  the  copies  in  the  British  Museum  it  would 
appear  that  an  edition  with  the  above  title  was  published  by  Geofroy 
Tory  at  Bruges,  in  one  vol.  folio,  1532,  and  another  edition  at 
Antwerp  in  1533.  Also  in  the  same  year,  1553,  another  edition 
was  printed  in  P;n  is. 

5  Knch  part  has  a  distinct  title-page,  but  pagination  ol  Pts.  i-  4 
is  continuous.     Part  5  has  a  distinct  pagination,  and  a  title-page 
bearing  the  date  of  1637. 

6  'Ihis  seems  to  be  the  translation  referred  to  by  Cruse  as  by 


1673,  &r.      Also  the   life   of  Constantino,   &c."     This  was  reprinted   at  Cambridge   in    1692, 
ami  later  on  in  London,  with  several  additions  relating  especially  to  the  Geography  in  1709. 

An  abridged  translation  of  the  Ecclesiastical  History  appeared  in  1703,  the  translator  being 
Samuel  Parker,  son  of  Samuel  Parker,  Bishop  of  Oxford  in  King  James  II.'s  reign  7.  The 
edition  was  reprinted  in  1720,  in  3  vols.  8vo,  and  again  in  1729  in  4to.  To  the  two 
later  editions  was  prefixed  a  dissertation  concerning  the  use  and  authority  of  Ecclesiastical 
History  by  C  Lesly,  and  to  the  third  an  abridged  translation,  by  another  hand,  of  Evagrius. 

The  latest  English  translation  was  made  by  the  Rev.  C.  F.  Cruse,  an  American  Episcopalian 
of  German  descent,  and  was  published  first  in  Philadelphia  in  1833,  with  a  translation,  by  Parker, 
of  Valesius'  Life  of  Eusebius  prefixed.  It  has  been  reprinted  a  great  many  times  both  in  Eng- 
land and  America,  and  is  included  in  Bohn's  Ecclesiastical  Library.  In  Bohn's  edition  are 
printed  a  few  scattered  notes  from  Valesius'  commentary,  and  in  some  other  editions  an  historical 
account  of  the  Council  of  Nicsea,  by  Isaac  Boyle,  is  added.  The  translation  is  an  improvement 
upon  its  predecessors,  but  is  nevertheless  very  faulty  and  unsatisfactory.  The  translator  is  not 
thoroughly  at  home  in  the  English,  and,  moreover,  his  version  is  marred  by  many  serious  omis- 
sions and  interpolations  which  reveal  an  inexcusable  degree  of  carelessness  on  his  part. 

§  5.     Literature. 

The  literature  upon  Euscbius'  History  is  very  extensive.  Many  of  the  editions  already 
mentioned  discuss,  in  their  prolegomena,  the  History  itself  and  Eusebius'  character  as  a  historian, 
as  do  also  all  the  lives  of  Eusebius  referred  to  above,  and  all  the  larger  histories  of  the  Church. 
In  addition  to  these  we  have  numerous  important  monographs  and  essays,  of  which  the  following 
may  be  mentioned  here:  Moller,  de  FiJe  Euscbn  in  rebus  christianis  enarrandis,  Havn.  1813; 
Dan/,  de  Eusclno  Cte.saricnsi  Hist.  Ecclesiastics  Scrip  tore,  Jense,  1815.  This  was  mentioned  in 
Chapter  I.  as  containing  a  valuable  discussion  of  the  life  of  Eusebius.  Its  chief  importance  lies 
in  its  treatment  of  the  sources  of  the  Chunk  History,  to  which  the  author  devotes  the  whole  of 
Chap.  III.  which  bears  the  title,  de  fontibus,  quibus  usus,  historiam  ecclesiasticam  conscripsit 
Eitsebius,  pp.  76-144.  Kcstner,  de  Eusebii  Historic  Eccles.  conditoris  auctoritatc,  et  fide 
diplomatica,  sive  dc  ejus  Fontibus  et  Ratione  qua  eis  usus  est,  Gottingai,  1816;  and  by  the  same 
author,  Ueber  die  Einseitigkeit  und  Partiieiligkdt  des  Eusebius  als  Gcschichtschreibers,  Jenre,  1819  ; 
Reuterdahl,  de  Fontibus  Historic  Eccles.  Eusebiance,  Londini  Gothorum,  1826;  Reinstra,  dc 
Fontibus,  ex  quibus  Historic  Eccles.  opus  hausit  Eusebius  Patnphi/i,  et  de  Ratione,  qua  Us  usus 
cst,  Trajecti  ad  Rhenum,  1833;  F.  C.  Baur,  Comparatur  Eusebius  Uistorice  Eccles.  Parens  cum 
Parents  Histories  Hcrodoto,  Tiib.  1834;  and  pp.  9-26  of  the  same  author's  Epochcn  de> 
kirchlichcn  Gcschichischreibung,  Tiib.  1852;  Bowling,  Introduction  to  the  Critical  Study  of 
Eccles.  History,  London,  1838,  pp.  11-18;  Hely,  Eusebe  de  Cesaree,  premier  Ilistoricn  de 
rEglisc,  Paris,  1877;  J.  Burckhardt,  Zcit  Constantins,  2d  ed.  1880,  pp.  307  sq.  Burckhardt 
depreciates  Eusebius'  value  and  questions  his  veracity.  The  review  articles  that  have  been  writ- 
ten on  Eusebius'  History  are  legion.  I  shall  mention  only  Engelhardt's  Eusebius  als  Kirchcn- 
geschichtschreiber,  in  the  Zeitschrift  fiir  hist.  Thcol.  1852,  pp.  652-657;  and  Jachmann's 
Bemcrkungen  ilber  die  Kirchcngeschi  elite  ties  Eusebius,  ib.  1839,  II.  pp.  10-60.  The  latter  con- 
tains one  of  the  most  unsparing  attacks  upon  Eusebius'  honesty  that  has  ever  been  made  (see 
above,  p.  49). 

7  The  translator,  it  may  be  added,  was  tlic  father  of  Sackvillc 
I'.irker,  who  was  founder  of  the  bookselling  business  in  Oxford 
bearing  that  name,  and  great  grandfather  of  John  Henry  Parker, 

the  publisher  of  the  Oxford  Library  of  the  Fathers,  whose  son 
and  grandson  are  the  English  publishers  of  this  present  scries  of 
Nicene  and  Post-Nicene  Fathers. 



From    Cons  fan  tine's  Letter  to    the  Antiochians    (in    Kuscbius'   Life   of   Consianiinc,   Book    III. 

chap.  60). 

"I  confess,  then,  that  on  reading  your  records  I  perceived,  by  the  highly  eulogistic  testimony 
which  they  bear  to  Kusebius,  bishop  of  Crcsarea  (whom  I  have  myself  long  well  known  and 
esteemed  for  his  learning  and  moderation),  that  you  are  strongly  attached  to  him  and  desire  to 
appropriate  him  as  your  own  prelate.  What  thoughts  then  do  you  suppose  that  I  entertain  on 
this  subject,  desirous  as  I  am  to  seek  for  and  act  on  the  strict  principles  of  right?  What  anxiety 
do  you  imagine  this  desire  of  yours  has  caused  me?  O  holy  faith,  who  givest  us  in  our  Saviour's 
words  and  precepts  a  model,  as  it  were,  of  what  our  life  should  be,  how  hardly  wouldst  thou 
thyself  resist  the  course  of  sin  were  it  not  that  thou  refusest  to  subserve  the  purposes  of  gain  ! 
In  my  own  judgment,  he  whose  first  object  is  the  maintenance  of  peace  seems  to  be  superior  to 
Victory  herself;  and  where  a  right  and  honorable  course  lies  open  to  one's  choice,  surely  no  one 
would  hesitate  to  adopt  it.  I  ask  then,  brethren,  why  do  we  so  decide  as  to  inflict  an  injury 
on  others  by  our  choice?  Why  do  we  covet  those  objects  which  will  destroy  the  credit  of  our 
own  character?  I  myself  highly  esteem  the  individual  whom  ye  judge  worthy  of  your  respect 
and  affection  ;  notwithstanding,  it  cannot  be  right  that  those  principles  should  be  entirely  disre- 
garded which  should  be  authoritative  and  binding  on  all  alike  ;  for  example,  that  each  should  be 
content  with  the  limits  assigned  them,  and  that  all  should  enjoy  their  proper  privileges  ;  nor  can 
it  be  right  in  considering  the  claims  of  rival  candidates  to  suppose  but  that  not  one  only,  but  many, 
may  appear  worthy  of  comparison  with  this  person.  For  as  long  as  no  violence  or  harshness 
are  suffered  to  disturb  the  dignities  of  the  Church,  they  continue  to  be  on  an  equal  footing,  and 
worthy  of  the  same  consideration  everywhere.  Nor  is  it  reasonable  that  an  enquiry  into  the 
qualifications  of  one  person  should  be  made  to  the  detriment  of  others  ;  since  the  judgment  of 
all  churches,  whether  reckoned  of  greater  importance  in  themselves,  is  equally  capable  of  receiving 
and  maintaining  the  divine  ordinances,  so  that  one  is  in  no  way  inferior  to  another  (if  we  will  but 
boldly  declare  the  truth),  in  regard  to  that  standard  of  practice  which  is  common  to  all.  Jf  this 
be  so,  we  must  say  that  you  will  be  chargeable,  not  with  retaining  this  prelate,  but  with  wrongfully 
removing  him ;  your  conduct  will  be  characterized  rather  by  violence  than  justice  ;  and  whatever 
may  be  generally  thought  by  others,  I  dare  clearly  and  boldly  affirm  that  this  measure  will  furnish 
ground  of  accusation  against  you,  and  will  provoke  factious  disturbances  of  the  most  mischievous 
kind  ;  for  even  timid  flocks  can  show  the  use  and  power  of  their  teeth  when  the  watchful  care 
of  their  shepherd  declines,  and  they  find  themselves  bereft  of  his  accustomed  guidance.  If  this 
then  be  really  so,  if  I  am  not  deceived  in  my  judgment,  let  this,  brethren,  be  your  first  considera- 
tion (for  many  and  important  considerations  will  immediately  present  themselves,  if  you  adopt 
my  advice),  whether,  should  you  persist  in  your  intention,  that  mutual  kindly  feeling  and  affection 
which  should  subsist  among  you  will  suffer  no  diminution?  In  the  next  place  remember  that 
Eusebius,  who  came  among  you  for  the  purpose  of  offering  disinterested  counsel,  now  enjoys  the 
reward  which  is  due  to  him  in  the  judgment  of  heaven ;  for  he  has  received  no  ordinary  recom- 
pense in  the  high  testimony  you  have  borne  to  his  equitable  conduct.  Lastly,  in  accordance  with 
your  usual  sound  judgment,  do  ye  exhibit  a  becoming  diligence  in  selecting  the  person  of  whom 
you  stand  in  need,  carefully  avoiding  all  factious  and  tumultuous  clamor  :  for  such  clamor  is 
always  wrong,  and  from  the  collision  of  discordant  elements  both  sparks  and  flame  will  arise." 

The  order  of  Valcsius  has  been  preserved  in  the  following  pages, 
but  occasionally  a  passage,  for  the  sake  of  greater  clearness,  has 
been  given  more  fully  than  by  him.  A  few  extracts  have  been 
omitted  (as  noted  below),  and  one  or  two,  overlooked  by  him,  have 
been  added.  The  extracts  have  all  been  translated  from  the  original 

for  this  edition,  with  the  exception  of  the  quotations  from  the  Life 
of  Constantino,  and  from  the  Greek  Ecclesiastical  Historians, — 
Socrates,  Sozomen,  Theodoret,  and  Evagrius,  —  which  have  been 
copied,  with  a  few  necessary  corrections,  from  the  version  found  in 
I'agster's  edition  of  the  (rt-eek  Ecclesiastical  Historians.  Tlie 
translation  has  been  made  at  my  request  by  Mr.  James  McDon- 
ald, of  Shelby  ville,  Ky.,  a  member  of  the  senior  class  (1890)  of  Lane 
Theological  Seminary. 


Fn>m  the  Emperor's  Letter  to  F.nsclriiis  (in  Kusebius'  Life  "f  Constanline,  Book  III.  chap.  61). 

"  I  hive  most  carefully  perused  your  letter,  ;md  perceive  that  you  have  strictly  conformed  to 
the  rule  enjoined  by  the  discipline  of  the  Church.  Now  to  abide  by  that  which  appears  at  the 
same  time  pleasing  to  God,  and  accordant  with  apostolic  tradition,  is  a  proof  of  true  piety:  and 
you  Irive  reason  to  deem  yourself  happy  on  this  behalf,  that  you  are  counted  worthy,  in  the  judg- 
ment, 1  may  say.  of  all  the  world,  to  have  the  oversight  of  the  whole  Church.  For  the  desire 
which  all  feel  to  claim  you  for  their  own,  undoubtedly  enhances  your  enviable  fortune  in  this 
respect.  Notwithstanding,  your  Prudence,  whose  resolve  it  is  to  observe  the  ordinances  of  God 
and  the  apostolic  rule  of  the  Church,  has  done  excellently  well  in  declining  the  bishopric  of  the 
Church  at  . \ntioch,  and  desiring  to  continue  in  that  Church  of  which  you  first  received  the  over- 
sight by  the  will  of  Cod." 

From  Constantinfs  Letter  to  the  Council  (in  Kusebius'  Life  of  Constantine,  Book  III.  chap.  62). 

"  I  have  perused  the  letters  written  by  your  Prudences,  and  highly  approve  of  the  wise  resolu- 
tion of  your  colleague  in  the  ministry.  Kusebius.  Having,  moreover,  been  informed  of  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  case,  partly  by  your  letters,  partly  by  those  of  our  illustrious  friends  Acacius 
and  Strategius,  after  sufficient  investigation  I  have  written  to  the  people  at  Antioch,  suggesting  the 
course  which  will  be  at  once  pleasing  to  Cod  and  advantageous  for  the  Church.  A  copy  of  this  1 
have  ordered  to  be  subjoined  to  this  present  letter,  in  order  that  ye  yourselves  may  know  what 
I  thought  fit,  as  an  advocate  of  the  cause  of  justice,  to  write  to  that  people  :  since  I  find  in  your 
letter  this  proposal,  that,  in  consonance  with  the  choice  of  the  people,  sanctioned  by  your  own 
desire.  Kusebius  the  holy  bishop  of  C;esarea  should  preside  over  and  take  the  charge  of  the 
Church  at  Antioch.  Now  the  letters  of  Kusebius  himself  on  this  subject  appeared  to  be  strictly 
accordant  with  the  order  prescribed  by  the  Church." 

From  a  Letter  of  Constantine  to  Euscbiiis  (in  Eusebius'  Life  of  Constantine,  Book  IV.  chap.  35). 

"  It  is  indeed  an  arduous  task,  and  beyond  the  power  of  language  itself,  worthily  to  treat  of 
the  mysteries  of  Christ,  and  to  explain  in  a  fitting  manner  the  controversy  respecting  the  feast  of 
Kaster,  its  origin  as  well  as  its  precious  and  toilsome  accomplishment.  For  it  is  not  in  the  power 
even  of  those  who  are  able  to  apprehend  them,  adequately  to  describe  the  things  of  Cod.  I  am, 
notwithstanding,  filled  with  admiration  of  your  learning  and  /eal,  and  have  not  only  myself  read 
your  work  with  pleasure,  but  have  given  directions,  according  to  your  own  desire,  that  it  be  com- 
municated to  many  sincere  followers  of  our  holy  religion.  Seeing,  then,  with  what  pleasure  we 
receive  favors  of  this  kind  from  your  Sagacity,  be  pleased  to  gladden  us  more  frequently  with 
those  compositions,  to  the  practice' of  which,  indeed,  you  confess  yourself  to  have  been  trained 
from  an  early  period,  so  that  I  am  urging  a  willing  man  (as  they  say),  in  exhorting  you  to  your 
customary  pursuits.  And  certainly  the"  high  and  confident  judgment  we  entertain  is  a  proof  that 
the  person  who  has  translated  your  writings  into  the  Latin  tongue  is  in  no  respect  incompetent  to 
the  task,  impossible  though  it  be  that  such  version  should  fully  equal  the  excellence  of  the  works 

From  a  Letter  of  Constantine  to  Eusebius  (in  Kusebius'  Life  of  Cons  fan  fine,  Rook  IV.  chap.  36). 

'•  It  happens,  through  the  favoring  providence  of  Cod  our  Saviour,  that  great  numbers  have 
united  themselves  to  the  most  holy  Church  in  the  city  which  is  called  by  my  name.  It  seems, 
therefore,  highly  requisite,  since  that  city  is  rapidly  advancing  in  prosperity  in  all  other  respects, 
that  the  number  of  Churches  should  also  be  increased.  Do  you,  therefore,  receive  with  all  readi- 
ness my  determination  on  this  behalf.  I  have  thought  it  expedient  to  instruct  your  Prudence  to 
order  fifty  copies  of  the  sacred  scriptures  (the  provision  and  use  of  which  you  know  to  be  most 
needful  for  the  instruction  of  the  Church)  to  be  written  on  prepared  parchment  in  a  legible  man- 
ner, and  in  a  commodious  and  portable  form,  by  transcribers  thoroughly  practiced  in  their  art. 
The  procurator  of  the  diocese  has  also  received  instructions  by  letter  from  our  Clemency  to  be 
careful  to  furnish  all  things  necessary  for  the  preparation  of  such  copies  ;  and  it  will  be  for  you 
to  take  special  care  that  they  be  completed  with  as  little  delay  as  possible.  You  have  authority 
also,  in  virtue  of  this  letter,  to  use  two  of  the  public  carriages  for  their  conveyance,  by  which 
arrangement  the  copies  when  fairly  written  will  most  easily  be  forwarded  for  my  personal  inspec- 
tion ;  and  one  of  the  deacons  of  your  Church  may  be  intrusted  with  this  service,  who,  on  his 
arrival  here,  shall  experience  my  liberality.  God  preserve  you,  beloved  brother  !  " 


From  the  Epistle  of  Euscbius  of  Nicomedia,  to  Paulinus,  Bishop  of  Tyre  (given  by  Theodorct  in 

his  Kecks.  Hist.  I.  6). 

"Neither  has  the  zeal  of  my  lord  Eusebius  concerning  the  truth,  nor  thy  silence  in  this  matter 
been  unknown,  but  has  reached  even  us.  And,  as  was  fitting,  on  the  one  hand  we  have  rejoiced 
on  account  of  my  lord  Eusebius  ;  but  on  the  other,  we  are  grieved  on  thy  account,  since  we  look 
upon  the  silence  of  such  a  man  as  a  condemnation  of  our  cause." 

From  the  Hook  of  Basil,  to  Amphiloc]nns,  on  /lie  Holy  Spirit  (chap.  29). 

"  If  to  any  one  Eusebius  of  Palestine  seem  trustworthy  on  account  of  his  great  experience,  we 
give  his  own  words  in  the  Difficulties  concerning  the  Polygamy  of  the  Ancients" 

From  the  Book  of  Questions  on  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  which  is  published  among  the  \\'orks 

of  Augustine  (chap.  125). 

"We  remember  to  have  read  in  a  certain  pamphlet  of  Eusebius,  a  man  formerly  distinguished 
among  the  rest  of  men,  that  not  even  the  Holy  Spirit  knows  the  mystery  of  the  nativity  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  and  I  wonder  that  a  man  of  so  great  learning  should  have  imposed  this  stigma 
upon  the  Holy  Spirit." 

From  Jerome's  Epistle  to  PammacJiius  and  Oceanus  (Ep.  65). 

"Apollinarius  wrote  the  very  strongest  books  against  Porphyry;  Kusebius  has  excellently 
composed  his  Ecclesiastical  History.  Of  these  men,  one  taught  an  incomplete  human  nature 
in  Christ ;  the  other  was  a  most  open  defender  of  the  heresy  of  Arms." 

From  the  Apology  of  Jerome  against  Rufinus  (l!ook  I.  chap.  8). 

"As  I  have  already  said,  Eusebius,  bishop  of  Cresarea,  formerly  leader  of  the  Arian  party,  has 
written  six  books  in  defense  of  Origen  —  a  very  extensive  and  elaborate  work;  with  much  evi- 
dence he  has  proved  that  Origen  was,  from  his  point  of  view,  a  Catholic,  that  is,  from  ours,  an 

From  the  same  book  (chap.  9). 

"  For  Eusebius  himself,  a  friend,  eulogist  and  companion  of  Pamphilus,  has  written  three  very- 
elegant  books  comprising  a  life  of  Pamphilus.  In  these,  after  extolling  other  tilings  with  wondrous 
praises  and  exalting  his  humility  to  the  skies,  he  also  adds  this  in  the  "third  book,"  .Sec. 

And  a  little  farther  on  in  the  same  hook  (chap.  1 1). 

"I  have  praised  Eusebius  in  his  Ecclesiastical  History,  in  his  Chronological  Canons,  in  his 
Description  of  the  Holy  Land;  and  turning  these  same  little  works  into  Latin  I  have  given  them 
to  those  of  my  own  tongue.  Am  I  therefore  an  Arian,  because  Eusebius  who  wrote  these  books 
is  an  Arian?" 

From  Jerome 's  second  book  against  Rufinus  (chap.  16). 

"  Eusebius,  a  very  learned  man  (I  have  said  learned,  not  Catholic  ;  lest  after  the  usual  man- 
ner, even  in  this  thing,  thou  heap  calumny  upon  me),  in  six  volumes  does  nothing  else  than  show 
Origen  to  be  of  his  own  faith ;  that  is,  of  the  Arian  heresy." 

From  the  Preface  of  Jerome's  Book  on  Jlebrcw  Topograpliy. 

"Eusebius,  who  took  his  surname  from  the  blessed  martyr  Pamphilus,  after  the  ten  books  of 
his  Ecclesiastical  History,  after  his  Chronological  Canons,  which  we  have  published  in  the  Latin 
tongue,  after  his  Names  of  Various  Nations,  in  which  he  showed  how  these  were  formerly,  and 
are  now,  called  among  the  Hebrews;  after  his  Topograpliv  of  the  Land  of  Judea,  with  the  inheri- 
tances of  the  tribes  ;  after  \»s  Jerusalem,  also,  and  his  Plan  of  the  Temple,  with  a  very  brief  ixpfa- 
nation^  —  after  all  these  he  has  finally  in  this  little  work  labored  that  he  might  collect  for  us  from 
Holy  Scripture  the  names  of  almost  all  the  cities,  mountains,  rivers,  villages,  and  divers  places, 
which  either  remain  the  same,  or  have  since  been  changed,  or  else  have  become  corrupted 
from  some  source,  wherefore  we  also,  following  the  zeal  of  this  admirable  man,"  &c. 


,|u.  ,  ,u  )     ul,,u.  .',  u-,  ko inns',  .-I    l-'.a-.tei.  and  .  liiollolo;;ieal   lahle-,  ii|.  lo  ihe   In-.l   seat  ol   the  I''...., 

\K.vllulei     and   hit    upon  a  V  \ .  I.    ol    -aMeen   ye.tls  win.  h   the  lliceks  .  all  i'KMiifitKiitri/fu&i  .  and  rave 
IP  01-,   i  ,1011  to  IMP, el  mi-.,  who  also  .  omposed   an   Kaslei   .anon,  \\illi  a  i  yi  le  ol  mnelecn  yea  is,  dial 

C,     C  I   I  t,,(V  Mlt  I   /^IllVl. 

/'/,-  ,'/•(<  hap.  S  i  ). 

••  Kuselmts,  hi-, Imp  ol  I'.es.iiea  in  Palestine,  a  man  mosl  studious  in  ihe  sat  led  S»  Uplines, 
IU,|  doiu:  with  I'amplnln-,  the  mailyi  a  mosl  dih:-,cnl  mv  cslis'.aloi  .-I  -,a.  led  hleiatnic,  ha-,  cdiled 
',„  minute  nnmhe,  ol  volume-.,  ,ome  ol  whu  h  are  ihese  ol  the  />./,/,•/;,/,,///,•  AVw//,;.//,,/,  twenty 
Look-,  ol  Ihe  /'  ',.'  .."/•  /'.''  •:••.'..',  liltecn  hook-,,  ol  the  '/'/ifi'/'/iilillil,  live  hook-,,  ol  the 
•>•'.:,.".  ,.-.'  //.•>.•'  r,  ten  hooks;  a  ( /  ..  .//  ///»/  -r  ..  '  ''.'  • '','< '/•  '.!,'•'"'/  /If/'/,'*,  and  an  /•'/•//,'///<• 
oldiem  ;  also,  <>//  ,/'/>.  .  -..-  -  <  /  •  ,.('/.•/»,//..•/•.  len  |...ok-.  .  and  /..;,////»/  /!'//'//IM' 

o\ho  at  Ihe  sanu-   lime  wa  .  u  .  itm;;    m    Si.  ilv.  as    some    llnnk  ) ,  thn  I  \    hooks,  ol    win.  h    onl\    twenty 
have  .nine  to   my  notice  ;    ol    In,  ,  one    hook;    ol    ihe    .//,-/,-/,/,  in    iletense    ol    (  >i  ij-cn,  -,ix 

|H,ok-,       ('  ",    llnee    hooks;    ('  '  •'.'    /''"'    .JA^/i'/A,  olhei    small    works; 

,,|.,o   u-n    learned  comment. MI.-,   on    the    hundred  and  lilt\    1'-. aim-,,  and   many  olhei   wriliiH-s.       He 
I  Ion  i  r. lied  .  Inellv  nndei    (he  empei  ol -,  ( 'on-.tant  me  and  (  'mi-, 1. ml  in:,  ,  and  on  a.  .  oiinl  .•!   hi-,  liiend 
,lup  with    ramplnhis  the  mailvi,   he   took    lioin   him   hi.  name. " 

/•'',"/.•  ///,'  \itnii-         I-   (<  hap.  i)i.). 

••  KusehiilS,  |.v   nation  a,  and.  allei    heilu.',   readei    in    Kmnc,  hi-, Imp  ol    \'ei.  ell.e,  mi  a« 
count  ol   his  conlession  ol   the  tail  h  ha  mshed  I M    the  1'iince  (  'oiislanlins  lo  Si  ylhopolis,  an.l  ihetu  e 

lo  I'appadn.  i.i,  nndei    |uh.m  the  em|»eioi  senl  hack    In    ihe    (  'him  h,  ha-,    puhh.hed    the    (',-//////,// 
,   ,-...  /,..,     /'\,i//tt.\   ol     I'aisehius  ol    (  '.e  ,aie.i,  win.  h   he  had   1 1  an-,  I.  lie.  I   I  mm  (  iieek    inln   I  .aim. 

/,'/,'  /'     ,    fill    C     /:'     //.•>        <  'M      I'M       l^lHtl-l. 

••  .\;',am-,(     the    pin|>hcl     h.imel     |'oi|ih\n    wiole    a    I  w  elll  li   v  olume,  dcnv  ni!',    thai     dial     h.  ...k    wa-, 
nunposed    hv    him  w  ilh  whose    name    H     is    ilis<  lihed,   \'c.      To    linn    Kiisehilis,  hlshop    ol    (,.--, aiea, 
has    replied  very    -.killlnllv    m    three    volumes,  thai    is,  in    volunu-s    \  \  I  I  I  ,   \  I  \  ,  and    \\        Ap..l 
hn.ii  in-,  al-,n    in    one    l.u  :;e  v  olume,  I  hat     is,  ill    the    twenlv    sixlh  volume,  and    hel.ue    ihe, c,   in    pail, 

/ .  /,•         •  .'  .  <  '  .i:\',  >  i>/    I/,//. 

"Concerning  tin-,  place,  thai  r,,  .  on.  ei  mils',  the  ahnminalmn  ol  desolalioli  whi<  h  was  spoken 
ol  hv  the  piophel  1  >amel,  r.laiidm;'  m  the  Imlv  |>l.i«e,  I'orphyry  has  nlleicd  inanv  hlasplieinies 
.i-ain,!  us  in  the  ihiitccnlh  volume  ol  his  work.  !'<>  whom  1  'n  .chilis,  hishnp  <'l  (  .e-,aiea,  has 
icphed  m  llnee  volumes,  that  is,  m  volumes  \\  111.,  \1\.,  and  \\." 

'///(•  w-Wi-',  ///  /'//>    /•  f'/t//i'  A'  .l/i /:;'/.'/*  (''•/'•  ^-l). 

"  Celsii-,  and   I'oiphyiy  have  wiitlen  against    us.      Tn    the    loiniei   (  (iii'.en,  In    the    laltei    Mellm 
dm-.,    Mu-.i-hiu-.,    and    Apnllmai  nr,    have    \eiv     vigorously    icplicd.       <M    whom    ()n:-en    wiole    eight 
honks,   Methodius  proceeded    as    l.u   as    ten    thousand    lines,   I'aisehius   and    Apnllmai  ins    <  omposed 
twenty  live  and  llmly  volumes  ic-.pei  lively." 

'/'//(•  \tinit\  in  hi\   /''/'/\//t-  f<>  /\t>n»iiti'/tin\  it/ii/  ()>i-iiiut\  (/'•/'•  <";)• 

"\\  mote  :,killlnl,  mole  le.iincd,  mote  eloquent  men  ran  he  loimd  than  I'aiSfhitIS  and 
hid\  inns,  the  advoe.  lie-,  ol  (>ii;',en?  The  Ininiei  ol  \\lmm,  m  the  si\  volumes  ol  Ins  .!/><>/<  '^i<i, 
proves  that  he  |  (  )ri^i-n  |  was  ol  the  same  opinion  as  him  .  ell." 

fti>»it\  in  tti-      /i-,i,f    <>       \   (  i'tHt 
"  l-'aisrhins  I'amphih  also  has  pnhlished  an  historical  .ommentaiv  m  lillefii  volumes." 

'/'tii-  sanif,  in  the  /'/(•/,  in'  /,<  the  /•'/////  /•',',•/,•  <>/  ///.»   (',>/n>tii-H/tm',:\  <>n  /»<//<///. 

"Shall  I  lake  upon  mvseir.i  work  al  which  the  most  learned  men  have  lahoied  haidr*    I   -.peak 
of   (  )rit;en  and    l-aisehius    r.implnli.      (  >l    these    the  lormei  wanders  alai   in  the  liee  spaces  ol  alle 

TK  ;i  j MO:; IKS  ix  FAVOR  OF  KT;SKHH;S.  6r 

gory.  .'Hid  his  genius   so   interprets;')':   names   a.  to  make  o'U  of  them  the  sacred  things  of  the 
f.h'irch.      Tlj':  latter,  v/hil<:    promising   in   hi-,  tjt.k-  an   historical   expo sition,  meanwhile  forgets  his 

piUpOS'-,   and    yields   himself   up  t'y  th';   tenets  oi   Origen.'' 

7/r/"  :<•/>///••,  ;//  tin-  fifth  I,,,,,  I.-,  /-f  In;   Commentary;  on  /;ai* 

"  K'Jscbiu 'j  of  Oesarea,  while  promising  in  his  title  an  histories!  exposition,  stravs  off  in  diver-, 
notion'.  :  while  reading  hi',  book  .  J  fo'ind  much  ';]•,'•  than  what  he  gave  promise  of  irj  his  till*.-. 
I'or  wherever  history  }j:r.  f.-iil':']  inin,  li(:  ha:.  <  ro'/.'r'i  ov.-r  into  a)l'.-;'or '.'  ;  afj'l  jrj  '/irjj  D.  rnann'rr 
'lo':,  h<:  unit/:  thiijv-,  t.ha.t  ar<:  'ij'Ain'  t,  tjjat.  J  \voij'i';r  at  hi  .  joining  to;":ih':r  by  a  n<:\v  art.  of  div 
<ourv:  '.ton':  an'i  iron  i/i'o  on'.-  body." 

' f<-r,,t>i<-  on  tin  fir;  I  >  lm/>/<  r  »/  M.tllknu. 

J\'ujinii\  in  In;   f'./n  ,1/r  In  tin-  J',i;ln,/>   Clinnmi  tut;. 

"  Vo1)    '  har^<:    (n<:    to    tran'.lat';   into    Latin    th<:    lut  li-.iu  ,/n  *i/  ///  ////>.  -.vJjj'.h  tli':  v:ry  I'.-arri'-'l 
.':biu'.  of  '  a:',ar':a   wrot':  in  th<:  fir':':k  ton;'ii':." 

',«:!(  tran,lat<:<l  it  into  the  J/  ton;"i<-,  ha  ,  al  .o  a'M«:<]  f.vo  book',  of  SM!>  ,<:']>i':nt  hr.tory,  I  'lid 
not  hii'l  any  h<:n:',y  whi'.li  I  had  not  r'.-ad  anion;^  th':'/:  v.-ry  on'.-,,  cx'.'rpt.  that,  one  -.v.hi'.h  l'Jis<:bius 
in)(:rt.s  in  hr,  -,ixth  book,  'Jat.inp;  tha.t  it  had  ':xr,t<:d  in  Arabia.  Therefor':  the-s':  heret.i'.s,  sinef;  lie- 
a  /.i^tr,  th':in  no  found'.T,  w:  may  '.all  .Arabian.,  who  de'lared  that,  t.he-  soul  dies  and  is  destroyed 
alon;^  with  the  body,  and  that  a.t  the-  end  of  t.he-  world  both  an:  raised  aj/aiu.  Uut.  he-  stale-s  that 
Ih'-y  were-  y-ry  'juiekly  '.orreete-d,  th':se  by  the-  disputation  of  Ori;;en  in  pe-rson,  and  tho^e  by  his 

"Sinee  now  tins  man  was  very  l<-arned,  having  searehef!  out.  and  tra.eed  baek  all  the  books 
and  writing,  of  the  more-  an*  lent  writers,  and  having  set  forth  the  opinions  of  almost,  all  of  them, 
and  having  !<•(!.  b'-hind  very  many  writings,  some-  of  whieh  are-  worthy  of  all  aeee-ptation,  making 
'is'-  of  sueh  an  estimation  as  this  of  the  man,  they  attempt,  to  lead  away  some-,  saying,  that  Kuse- 
bius  would  not  hay  f.hosen  to  take  this  view,  unless  he  had  a.'  '.uralely  a.v  '-rla.iried  that  all  the 
opinions  of  the  aic  i'-nts  n-'|uired  it.  I,  md':e-d,  a^ree-  and  admit  that  the-  man  was  very  I'-arned, 
and  tha.t.  not  anything  of  the  mor<-  an'  i'-nt  writings  eseape-d  his  knowledge;  for,  taking  advantage 
of  the-  imp'-rial  ro  operation,  he  was  enabled  easily  to  eolleet  for  his  use  mate-rial  from  whatever 

/•'inin  lit,'  /•//•/  /!,,,,/.•  ,,f  f'^tnnt;  fnnn  /lie  /''.tc/  /li\i<»y  of  S'/ii /ft <, /or^in <;. 

"  I'lnlostorgius,  while  jtraising  Isusebius  I'ainphili  both  as  to  whatever  of  worth  belongs  to  his 
hr.toii'-s  and  as  to  other  things,  yet.  de<  lares  that  with  regard  to  religion  he  has  fallen  into  great 
error;  and  that  he  impiously  sets  forth  this  error  of  his  in  detail,  holding  that  the  Deity  is 
unknowable  and  ineomprehensible.  Moreover,  he  holds  that  he  has  also  gone  astray  on  other 
''"'  h  thin;';,.  I'.ut  lie  unites  with  others  in  attesting  that  he-  brought  his  J/i\tory  down  to  the  acces- 
sion of  the  sons  of  <  .onstant ine  the  (irea.t." 

.WmA'i  ///  tin1  l'"int  Jinok  of  hi\  Ecclcsia^tiral  History  Crliap.  i). 

"  I'Jisebius,  siirnaincd    I'amphilus    (i.e.   universally   beloved),   has  composed   a   History  of  the 
(  'linr<  h  in  ten  books,  brought  down  to  the  time  of  the    Ismperor   ^'onstantine,  when   the   persem 
lion  <  e;i',ed  whi'h  Dio'letiaii  had  '  ommeneed  against    the  ( ,'hristians.      I'.ut,  in   writing   the   life   ot 
<  .'oiislanline,  this  author  has  very  slightly  treated  of  the  Arian   controversy,  being   evidently   more 
intent  on  a  highly  wrought  eulogium  of  the  emperor  than  an  accurate  statement  of  facts." 


The   same   Socrates  in   the   Eighth    Chapter  of  the  name   Book,   speaking  of  Salnnus,  bishop  of 

Macedonia,  who  had  written  a  Jlist^ry  of  the  Synod,  says  :  - 

"Yet  he  commends  Eusebius  Pamphilus  as  a  witness  worthy  of  credit,  and  praises  the  Emperor 
as  capable  in  stating  Christian  doctrines;  but  he  still  brands  the  faith  which  was  declared  at  Nice 
as  having  been  set  forth  by  ignorant  men,  and  such  as  had  no  intelligence  in  the  matter.  Thus 
he  voluntarily  contemns  tlie  testimony  of  a  man  whom  he  himself  pronounces  a  wise  and  true  wit- 
ness ;  for  Eusebius  declares  that  of  the  ministers  of  (lod  who  were  present  at  the  Xicene  Synod, 
some  were  eminent  for  the  word  of  wisdom,  others  for  the  strictness  of  their  life  ;  and  that  the 
Emperor  himself  being  present,  leading  all  into  unanimity,  established  unity  of  judgment,  and 
conformity  of  opinion  among  them." 

The  same  Socrates,  in  Book  II.  chap.  2T. 

"  I  Jut  since  some  have  attempted  to  stigmati/.e  Eusebius  I 'amphilus  as  having  favored  the  Arian 
views  in  his  works,  it  may  not  be  irrelevant  here  to  make  a  few  remarks  respecting  him.  In  the 
lirst  place,  then,  he  was  present  at  the  council  of  Nice,  and  gave  his  assent  to  what  was  there 
determined  in  reference  to  the  consubstantiality  of  the  Son  with  the  Father,  and  in  the  third  book 
of  the  Life  of  Constantine,  he  thus  expressed  himself:  '  The  Emperor  incited  all  to  unanimity,  until 
h<-  had  rendered  them  uniteil  in  judgment  on  those  points  on  which  they  were  previously  at  variance : 
so  that  the\  were  ijnite  agreed  at  .Vice  in  matters  of  faith.'1  Since,  therefore,  Eusebius,  in  men- 
tioning the  Nicene  Synod,  says  that  all  differences  were  composed,  and  that  unanimity  of  senti- 
ment prevailed,  what  ground  is  there  for  assuming  that  he  was  himself  an  Arian?  The  Arians  are 
certainly  deceived  in  supposing  him  to  be  a  favorer  of  their  tenets.  But  some  one  will  perhaps 
say  that  in  his  discourses  he  seems  to  have  adopted  the  opinions  of  Arius,  because  of  his  fre- 
quently saying  l>y  Christ.  Our  answer  is  that  ecclesiastical  writers  often  use  this  mode  of  expres- 
sion, and  others  of  a  similar  kind  denoting  the  economy  of  our  Saviour's  humanity  :  and  that 
before  all  these  the  apostle  made  use  of  such  expressions  without  ever  being  accounted  a  teacher 
of  false  doctrine.  Moreover,  inasmuch  as  Arius  has  dared  to  say  that  the  Son  is  a  creature,  as 
one  of  the  others,  observe  what  Eusebius  says  on  this  subject  in  his  first  book  against  Marcellus  : 

"'//<•  alone,  and  no  other,  has  been  declared  to  />e,  and  is  the  only-begotten  Son  of  God ;  whence 
any  one  would  justly  censure  tliosc  who  liave  presume^!  to  affirm  tJiat  he  is  a  Creature  made  of 
nothing  like  the  rest  of  the  creatures ;  for  how  then  would  he  be  a  Son?  and  how  could  fie  be 
GoiTs  only-begotten,  were  lie  assigned  the  same  nature  as  /Jie  other  creatures,  and  were  fie  one 
of  the  many  created  things,  seeing  that  he,  like  them,  would  in  that  case  be  partaker  of  a  creation 
from  nothing?  The  sacred  Scriptures  do  not  tints  instruct  us  concerning  these  tilings."  He  again 
adds  a  little  afterwards:  '  Whoever  then  deter /nines  that  the  Son  is  made  of  things  that  are  not, 
and  that  he  is  a  creature  produced  from  nothing  pre-existing,  forgets  that  while  he  concedes  the 
name  of  Son,  he  denies  him  to  be  so  in  reality.  For  he  that  is  made  of  nothing  cannot  truly  be  the 
Son  of  God,  a  in-  more  than  the  other  things  which  hare  been  made :  but  the  true  Son  of  God,  for- 
asmuch as  he  is  begotten  of  the  Fatlier,  is  properly  denominated  the  only-begotten  and  beloved  of 
the  Father.  For  this  reason  also,  he  himself  is  God :  for  what  can  the  offspring  of  God  be  but 
the  perfect  resemblance  of  him  who  begat  him  ?  A  sovereign,  indeed,  builds  a  city,  but  does  not 
beget  it;  and  is  said  to  beget  a  son,  not  to  build  one.  An  artificer  may  be  called  the  f ranter,  but 
not  the  father  of  his  work;  while  he  could  l>\  no  means  be  styled  the  framer  of  him  whom  he  had 
In-gotten.  So  a/so  the  God  of  the  Universe  is  the  father  of  the  Son  ;  but  would  be  fitly  termed  the 
Framer  and  Afaker  of  the  world.  And  although  it  is  once  said  in  Scripture,  The  Lord  created 
me  the  beginning  of  his  ways  on  account  of  his  works,  vet  it  becomes  us  to  consider  the  import  of 
this  phrase,  which  I  shall  hereafter  explain  ;  and  not,  as  Marcellus  has  done,  from  a  single  pas- 
sage to  subvert  one  of  the  most  imports nt  doctrines  of  the  Church.' 

"  These  and  many  other  such  expressions  are  found  in  the  first  book  of  Eusebius  Pamphilus 
against  Marcellus  ;  and  in  his  third  book,  declaring  in  what  sense  the  term  creature  is  to  be  taken, 
he  says  :  'Accordingly  these  things  being  established,  it  follows  that  in  the  same  sense  as  that  which 
preceded,  these  words  also  are  to  be  understood,  The  Lord  created  me  in  the  beginning  of  his 
ways  on  account  of  his  works.  For  althongli  he  says  that  he  was  created,  it  is  not  as  if  he  should 
v./v  that  he  had  arrived  at  existence  from  lohat  was  not,  nor  that  he  himself  also  was  made  of 
nothing  like  the  rest  of  (lie  creatures,  which  some  have  erroneously  supposed :  but  as  subsisting, 
living,  pre-existing,  ami  being  before  the  constitution  of  the  whole  world ;  and  having  been 
appointed  to  rule  (lie  universe  by  liis  Lord  and  Father :  the  word  created  being  here  used  instead 
tT/" ordained  or  constituted.  Certainlv  the  apostle  expressly  called  the  rulers  and  governors  among 
men  creature,  when  he  said.  Submit  yourselves  to  every  human  creature  for  the  Lord's  sake; 


whether  to  the  king  as  supreme,  or  to  governors  as  those  sent  by  him.  Tlie  prophet  also  does  not 
its i-  the  word  iKTurtv  created  in  the  sense  of  made  of  that  which  had  no  previous  existence,  when 
he  says,  Prepare,  Israel,  to  invoke  thy  Cod.  For  behold  he  who  confirms  the  thunder,  creates 
the  Spirit,  and  announces  his  Christ  unto  men.  J''»r  God  did  not  tlten  create  the  Spirit  w/irn  he 
declared  his  Christ  to  all  men,  since  There  is  nothing  new  under  the  sun  ;  but  flic  Spirit  7, ><ts,  and 
subsis/ed  In-fore  :  but  he  was  sent  at  what  time  ilic  apostles  were  gatliered  toy  liter,  wlien  like 
tJnnider,  There  came  a  sound  from  heaven  as  of  a  rushing  mighty  wind  :  and  they  were-  filled 
with  the  Holy  Spirit.  And  thus  they  declared  unto  all  men  the  Christ  of  God  in  accordance  with 
that  prophecy  which  says,  Behold,  he  who  confirms  the  thunder,  creates  the  spirit,  and  announces 
his  Christ  unto  men:  ////•  wont  creates  being  used  instead  of  sends  down,  or  appoints;  and 
thunder  /;/  a  similar  way  implying  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel.  Again  he  that  savs,  Create  in 
me  a  clean  heart,  ()  Cod,  said  not  //t/s  as  if  he  //ad  no  heart;  Init  prayed  that  //is  mind  might  l>e 
purified.  Tims  also  it  is  said,  That  he  might  create  the  two  into  one  new  man,  instead  of  unite. 
Consider  also  whether  this  passage  is  not  of  the  same  kind,  (Z\o\he.  yourselves  with  the  new  man, 
which  is  created  according  to  God;  and  this,  If,  therefore,  any  one  be  in  Christ,  he  is  a  new 
creature,  and  whatever  other  expressions  of  a  similar  nature  any  one  way  find  who  shall  carefully 
search  the  divinely- inspired  Scripture.  IVherefore  one  slwuld  not  be  surprised  if  in  this  passage, 
The  Lord  created  me  the  beginning  of  his  ways,  the  term  created  is  used  metaphorically,  instead 
<•/ appointed,  or  constituted.' 

"These  quotations  from  the  books  of  Eusebius  against  Marcellus  have  been  adduced  to  con- 
fute those  who  have  slanderously  attempted  to  traduce  and  criminate  him.  Neither  can  they  prove 
that  Eusebius  attributes  a  beginning  of  subsistence  to  the  Son  of  God,  although  they  may  find 
him  often  using  the  expressions  of  dispensation  :  and  especially  so,  because  he  was  an  emulator 
and  admirer  of  the  works  of  Origen,  in  which  those  who  are  able  to  comprehend  that  author's 
writings,  will  perceive  it  to  be  everywhere  stated  that  the  Son  was  begotten  of  (lie  Father.  These 
remarks  have  been  made  in  passing,  in  order  to  refute  those  who  have  misrepresented  Fusebius." 

Sozomcn  in  the  First  Book  of  his  Ecclesiastical  History  (chap.  i.). 

"  I  at  first  felt  strongly  inclined  to  trace  the  course  of  events  from  the  very  commencement  : 
but  on  reflecting  that  similar  records  of  the  past,  up  to  their  own  time,  had  been  compiled  by  the 
learned  Clemens  and  Hegesippus,  successors  of  the  apostles,  by  Africanus  the  historian  and  Euse- 
bius surnamed  Pamphilus,  a  man  intimately  acquainted  with  the  sacred  Scriptures  and  the  writ- 
ings of  the  Greek  poets  and  historians,  I  merely  drew  up  an  epitome  in  two  books  of  all  that  is 
recorded  to  have  happened  to  the  churches,  from  the  ascension  of  Christ  to  the  deposition  of 

Victorias  in  the  Paschal  Canon. 

"  Reviewing  therefore  the  trustworthy  histories  of  the  ancients,  namely  the  Chronicles  and 
prologue  of  the  blessed  Eusebius,  bishop  of  Crcsarea,  a  city  in  Palestine,  a  man  pre-eminently 
accomplished  and  learned  ;  and  likewise  those  things  which  have  been  added  to  these  sam'e 
Chronicles  by  Jerome  of  sacred  memory." 

Jerome,  in  his  Epistle  to   Chromatius  and  Hcliodorus,  prefixed  to  the  Martyrology  which  bear, 

Jeromejs  Name. 

"It  is  evident  that  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  obtains  triumphs  at  every  martyrdom  of  his  saints, 
whose  sufferings  we  find  described  by  the  saintly  Eusebius,  bishop  of  Csesarea.  For  when  Con-' 
stantine  Augustus  came  to  Ccesarea  and  told  the  celebrated  bishop  to  ask  some  favors  which 
should  benefit  the  church  at  Cajsarea,  it  is  said  that  Eusebius  answered  :  That  a  church  enriched 
by  its  own  resources  was  under  no  necessity  of  asking  favors,  yet  that  he  himself  had  an  unalter- 
able desire,  that  whatever  had  been  done  in  the  Roman  republic  against  God's  saints  by  succes- 
sive judges  in  the  whole  Roman  world  they  should  search  out  by  a  careful  examination  of  the 
public  records  ;  and  that  they  should  draw  from  the  archives  themselves  and  send  to  Eusebius 
himself,  by  royal  command,  the  names  of  the  martyrs  :  under  what  judge,  in  what  province  or 
city,  upon  what  day,  and  with  what  steadfastness,  they  had  obtained  the  reward  ot  their  suffering. 
Whence  it  has  come  about  that,  being  an  able  narrator  and  a  diligent  historiographer,  he  has  both 
composed  an  Ecclesiastical  History  and  has  set  forth  the  triumphs  of  nearly  all  of  the  martyrs  of 
all  the  Roman  provinces." 

64  I'kOLF.r.OMKNA. 

Pvpe  Gi'/asiits  in  //is  Decree  concerning  the  Apocryphal  Hooks. 

"  Likewise  as  to  the  Chronicles  of  Fusebius  and  the  books  of  his  Ecclesiastical  History, 
although  in  the  first  book  of  his  narration  lie  has  grown  cold,  and  lias  afterwards  written  one  book 
in  praise  and  in  defense  of  Origen  the  schismatic,  yet  on  account  of  his  singular  knowledge  of 
things  which  pertain  to  instruction,  we  do  not  say  that  they  ought  to  be  rejected." 

"  That  saying  the  same  thing  with  one  heart  and  one  mouth  we  may  also  believe  what  we  have 
received  trom  our  forefathers,  and,  (lod  giving  them  to  us,  that  we  may  hand  them  down  to  pos- 
terity to  be  believed  in,  with  which  things  the  adduced  testimony  of  the  Catholic  masters,  being 
summed  up,  bear  witness  that  a  united  faith  in  a  gracious  God  endures." 

Pamphili,  etc.     Likewise  from  his  Prtcparatio  Erangclica,  Book  VII." 

Pope  Pelagius  II.  in  Jus  Third  Epistle  to  Elias  of  Aquilcia  and  other  Bishops  of  Istria. 

"  For,  indeed,  among  hreresiarchs  who  can  be  found  worse  than  Origen,  and  among  historiog- 
raphers who  more  honorable  than  Fusebius?  And  who  of  us  does  not  know  with  how  great 
praises  Fusebius  extols  Origen  in  his  books?  But  because  the  holy  Church  deals  more  kindly 
with  the  hearts  of  her  faithful  ones  than  she  does  severely  with  their  words,  neither  could  the  tes- 
timony of  Fusebius  remove  him  from  his  proper  place  among  heretics,  nor  on  the  other  hand  has 
she  condemned  Fusebius  for  the  fault  of  praising  Origen." 

,  in  tJte  First  Hook  of  his  Ecclesiastical  History  (chap.  i). 

"Fusebius  Pamphili  —  an  especially  able  writer,  to  the  extent,  in  particular,  of  inducing  his 
readers  to  embrace  our  religion,  though  failing  to  perfect  them  in  the  faith  —  and  So/omen,  Theo- 
doret,  and  Socrates  have  produced  a  most  excellent  record  of  the  advent  of  our  compassionate 
God,  and  his  ascension  into  heaven,  and  of  all  that  lias  been  achieved  in  the  endurance  of  the 
divine  Apostles,  as  well  as  of  the  other  martyrs,"  etc. 

Gregory  the  Great  in  his  Epistle  to  Eiilogius,  Bishop  of  Alexandria. 

"  I  have  now  become  one  of  the  number  of  hearers,  to  whom  your  Holiness  has  taken  the 
pains  to  write,  that  we  ought  to  transmit  the  deeds  of  all  the  martyrs  which  have  been  collected 
by  Fusebius  of  Caisarea  in  the  age  of  Constantinc  of  holy  memory.  But  I  was  not  aware  before 
receiving  your  Holiness'  letter  whether  these  things  had  been  collected  or  not.  I  therefore  am 
thankful  that  being  informed  by  the  writings  of  your  most  holy  learning,  I  have  begun  to  know 
what  I  did  not  know  before.  For  excepting  these  things  which  are  contained  in  the  books  of 
this  same  Fusebius  On  the  deeds  of  the  holy  martyrs,  1  have  met  with  nothing  else  in  the  archives 
of  this  our  church,  nor  in  the  libraries  of  Kome,  except  some  few  collected  in  a  single  volume." 

Gelasius  of  Cvzicus  in  his  Strom/  Bonk  On  flic  Council  of  Niccca  (chap.  i). 

"  Fet  us  hear  now  what  says  this  the  most  illustrious  husbandman  in  ecclesiastical  farming, 
the  most  truth-loving  Fusebius,  surnamed  after  the  celebrated  Pamphilus.  Licinius,  indeed,  he 
says,  having  followed  the  same  path  of  impiety  with  the  ungodly  tyrants,  has  justly  been  brought 
to  the  same  precipice  with  them,  etc.  (which  may  be  found  at  the  end  of  the  tenth  book  of  the 
Ecclesiastical  History").  As  to  Fusebius  Pamphili,  the  most  trustworthy  of  ancient  ecclesiastical 
historians,  who  has  investigated  and  set  forth  so  many  struggles,  having  made  a  choice  from  among 
his  simply  written  works,  we  say  that  in  all  ten  books  of  his  Ecclesiastical  History  he  has  left 
behind  an  accurately  written  work.  Beginning  with  the  advent  of  our  Lord  he  has,  not  without 
much  labor,  proceeded  as  fir  as  those  times.  For  how  else  could  it  be  with  him  who  took  so 
great  care  to  preserve  for  us  the  harmony  of  this  collection?  But  as  I  have  just  said,  he  brought 
to  bear  upon  it  much  study  and  an  untold  amount  of  labor.  But  let  no  one  suppose,  from  those 
things  which  have  been  alleged  with  regard  to  him,  that  this  man  ever  adopted  the  heresy  of 
Arius  ;  but  let  him  be  sure,  that  even  if  he  did  speak  somewhat  of,  and  did  write  briefly  concern- 
ing the  conjectures  of  Arius,  he  certainly  did  not  do  it  on  account  of  his  entertaining  the  impious 
notion  of  that  man,  but  from  artless  simplicity,  as  indeed  he  himself  fully  assures  us  in  his  Apology, 
which  he  distributed  generally  among  orthodox  bishops." 


The  author  of  the  Alexandrian  Chronicle  (p.  5X2). 

"The  very  learned  Eusebius  Pamphili  has  written  thus  :  As  the  Jews  crucified  Christ  at  the 
feast,  so  they  all  perished  at  their  own  feast." 

Niccphorus  in  the  Sixth  Book  of  his  History  (chap.  37). 

"Upon  whose  authority  also  we  know  of  the  divine  Pamphilus  as  both  living  the  life  of  a  phil- 
osopher and  wearing  the  dignity  of  presbyter  in  that  place.     His  life  and  every  event  in  it,  also 
s  e  tab  ishing  in  that  place  the  study  of  sacred  and  profane  philosophy,  also  his  confession  of 
re  Son  Kvers  persecutions,  his  struggles,  and  at  last  his  wearing  the  martyr's  -own   Euse- 
bius his  nephew,  who  had  such  a  regard  for  him  as  to  take  from  him  his  surname,  has  compre- 
hended in  detail  in  one  separate  book  ;  to  this  we  refer  those  who  may  wish  to  find  out  accurately 
concerning  him.     This  Eusebius,  indeed,  although  having  prosecuted  many  studies,  especially 
excels  in  the  study  of  sacred  literature.     His  life  extended  until  the  time  of  Constants.     Leing 
a  man  pre-eminently  Christian,  and  endowed  with  great  zeal  for  Christ,  he  has  written  the  1  nr- 
paratio  Evangelical  fifteen  books,  and  in  ten  more  the  Demonstrate  Eyangdica.     He  was  also 
the  first  one  to  take  in  hand  this  subject,  having  been  the  first  to  call  his  book  an  Ecclesiastical 
History ;  this  work  is  contained  in  ten  volumes.     There  is  also  another  book  of  his  extant  which 
he  entitled  Canons,  in  which  he  accurately  investigates  chronological  matters    He  has  also  composed 
five  books  On  the  Life  of  Constantine,  and  another  addressed  to  him  which  he  calls  TptoKovTueT,- 
ptKov     To  Stephanus  he  also  dedicates  another  concerning  those  things  in  the  sacred  Gospels  whi 
have  been  called  in  question;  and  he  has  also  left  behind  divers  other  works  which  are  of  , 
benefit  to  the  Church.     Apart  from  being  such  a  man  as  this,  he  in  many  ways  seems 
the  opinions  of  Arius,"  etc. 

From  the  MS.  Acts  of  Pope  Silvester. 

"Eusebius  Pamphili,  in  writing  his  Ecclesiastical  History,  has  in  every  case  omitted  to  men- 
tion those  things  which  he  has  pointed  out  in  other  works  ;  for  he  has  put  into  eleven  books  1 
sufferings  of  the  martyrs,  bishops,  and  confessors,  who  have  suffered  in  almost  all  the  provinces 
But  indeed  as  to  the  sufferings  of  women  and  maidens,  such  as  with  manly  fortitude  suffered  for 
the  sake  of  Christ  the  Lord,  he  records  nothing.     He  is,  moreover,  the  only  one  who  h 
forth  in  their  order  the  sufferings  of  the  bishops,  from  the  Apostle  Peter  down.     Moreover,  h« 
drew  up  for  the  benefit  of  the  public  a  catalogue  of  the  pontiffs  of  those  cities  and  apostol 
seats ;  that  is,  of  the  great  city  of  Rome,  and  the  cities  of  Alexandria  and  Antioch      Of  the  num- 
ber then  of  those  of  whom,  up  to  his  own  times,  the  above-mentioned  author  wrote  in  the  G 
tongue,  this  man's  life  he  was  unable  to  paraphrase  ;  that  is,  the  life  of  the  saint  Silvester,    < 

An  ancient  author  in  the  Passion  of  the  Holy  Valerian. 

"  The  glorious  struggles  of  the  most  blessed  martyrs,  for  the  honor  of  Christ  the  Lord  and  of  our 
God,  are  celebrated  by  perpetual  services  and  an  annual  solemnity,  that  while  our  faithrul  people 
know  the  faith  of  the  martyrs,  they  may  also  rejoice  in  their  triumphs,  and  may  rest  assured  t 
bv  the  protection  of  these  that  they  themselves  are  to  be  protected.     For  it  is  held  in  repute  t  lat 
Eusebius  the  historian,  of  sacred  memory,  bishop  of  the  city  of  Casarea,  a  most  blessed  pri 
excellent  life,  very  learned  also  in  ecclesiastical  matters,  and  to  be  venerated  for  his  extraordi 
carefulness,  set  forth  for  every  city,  in  so  far  as  the  truth  was  able  to  be  ascertained,  the      oly 
Spirit  announcing  the  deeds  that  had  been  done,  —  inasmuch  as  the  cities  of  single  provinces  and 
localities  or  towns  have  merited  being  made  famous  by  the  heavenly  triumphs  of  martyrs, - 
forth  I  say  in  the  time  of  what  rulers  the  innumerable  persecutions  were  inflicted  at  the 
mand  of  officials.     Who,  although  he  has  not  described  entire  the  sufferings  of  individual  mar- 
tyrs, yet  has  truly  intimated  why  they  ought  to  be  described  or  celebrated  by  faithful  and  devote 
Christians.     Thus  this  faithful  husbandman  has  cultivated  the  grace  of  God,  which  has  bee 
scattered  abroad  in  all  the  earth,  while,  as  it  were,  from  a  single  gram  of  wheat,  plentei 
vests  are  produced  on  account  of  the  fertility  of  the  field,  and  go  on  in  multiplied  abundana 
So  through  the  narration  of  the  above-mentioned  man,  diffused  from  the  fountain  of  a  singl. 
with  the  ever-spreading  writings  of  the  faithful,  the  celebrating  of  the  sufferings  of 
has  watered  all  the  earth." 

Usuardus  in  his  Martyrology. 

"  On  the  twenty-first  day  of  June,  in  Palestine,  the  holy  Eusebius,  bishop  and  confessor,  a  man 
of  most  excellent  genius,  and  a  historiographer." 

VOL.  i.  F 


Notker  in  his  Martyrology. 
"  On  the  twenty-first  day  of  June,  the  deposition  in  Ctesarca  of  the  holy  bishop  Eusebius." 

Mancchariw  in  his  Epistle  to  Ceraunius,  Bishop  of  Paris. 

•'  Unceasing  in  thy  continual  efforts  to  equal  in  merit  the  very  excellent  persons  of  the  most 

blessed  b?G  in  all  the  conversation  of  the  priesthood,  zealous  to  adorn  thyself  every  day 

oh  roll  'non,  by  thy  /eal  for  reading  thou  hast  searched  through  the  whole  of  the  doctrines  of 

he  sac  ed  Scripture,.     Now  as  an  addition  to  thy  praiseworthiness  thou  dost  faithfully  purpose, 

the  r,  v  of  Paris,  to  gather  together  for  the  love  of  religion,  the  deeds  of  the  holy  martyrs. 

Wherefore  thou  art  worthy  of  being  compared  in  zeal  with  Eusebius  of  Csesarea,  and  art  worthy 

of  being  remembered  perpetually  with  an  equal  share  of  glory. 

From  an  old  Manuscript  Breviary  of  the  Lemwicensian  Church. 

"  Of  the  holy  Eusebius,  bishop  and  confessor. 

«  J  esson  i  Eusebius,  bishop  of  Ctesarea  in  Palestine,  on  account  of  his  friendship  with 
Pamphilus  the  martyr,  took  from  him  the  surname  of  PamphUi  ;  inasmuch  as  along  with  this  same 
Pamphilus  he  was  a  most  diligent  investigator  of  sacred  literature.  Ihe  man  indeed  is  very 
worthy  of  being  remembered  in  these  times,  both  for  his  skill  in  many  things  and  for  his  won- 
derful genius,  ami  by  both  Gentiles  and  Christians  he  was  held  distinguished  and  most  noble 
among  philosophers.  This  man,  after  having  for  a  time  labored  in  behalf  of  the  Anan  heresy, 
coming  to  the  council  of  Niciea,  inspired  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  followed  the  decision  of  the 
Fathers,  and  thereafter  up  to  the  time  of  his  death  lived  in  a  most  holy  manner  m  the  orthodox 

Llt  «  Lesson  2  He  was,  moreover,  very  zealous  in  the  study  of  the  sacred  Scriptures,  and  along 
with  Pamphilus  the  martyr  was  a  most  diligent  investigator  of  sacred  literature.  At  the  same 
time  he  has  written  many  things,  but  especially  the  following  books  :  The  Praparatio  EvangcKca, 
the  Ecclesiastical  History,  Against  Porphyry,  a  very  bitter  enemy  of  the  Christians  ;  he  has  also 
composed  Six  Apologies  in  Behalf  of  Ongen,  a  Life  of  Pamphilus  the  Marty,  ,  from  whom  on 
account  of  friendship  he  took  his  surname,  in  three  books;  likewise  very  learned  Commentaries 
on  the  hundred  and  fifty  Psalms. 

"  Lesson  3  Moreover,  as  we  read,  after  having  ascertained  the  sufferings  of  many  holy 
martyrs  in  all  the  provinces,  and  the  lives  of  confessors  and  virgins,  he  has  written  concerning  these 
saints  twenty  books  ;  while  on  account  of  these  books  therefore,  and  especially  on  account  of  his 
Prteparafio  Evangelica,  he  was  held  most  distinguished  among  the  Gentiles,  because  of  his 
love  of  truth  he  contemned  the  ancestral  worship  of  the  gods.  He  has  written  also  ^Chronicle, 
extending  from  the  first  year  of  Abraham  up  to  the  year  300  A.D.,  which  the  divine  Hieronymiis 
has  continued.  Finally  this  Eusebius,  after  the  conversion  of  Constantine  the  'Great,  was  unite 
him  by  strong  friendship  as  long  as  he  lived." 

/;/  the  Breviary  of  the  same  church,  June  twenty-first. 

«  Omnipotent,  eternal  God,  who  dost  permit  us  to  take  part  in  the  festivities  in  honor  of  Euse- 
bius, thy  holy  confessor  and  priest,  bring  us,  we  pray  thee,  through  his  prayers,  into  the  society  o 
heavenly  joys,  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  etc.1 

From  the  book  On  the  Lights  of  the  Church. 

"  Eusebius  of  Ctesarca,  the  key  of  the  Scriptures  and  custodian  of  the  New  Testament,  is 
proved  by  the  Greeks  to  be  greater  than  many  in  his  treatises.  There  are  three  celebrated  works 
of  his  which  truly  testify  to  this  :  the  Canons  of  the  Four  Gospels,  which  set  forth  and  defend  the 
New  Testament,  ten  books  of  Ecclesiastical  History,  and  the  Chronicon,  that  is,  a  chronological 
summary.  We  have  never  found  any  one  who  has  been  able  to  follow  in  all  his  foot-prints. 

From  the  Miscellanies  of  Theodore  Me  to  chit  a  (chap.  19). 

"  Eusebius  Pamphili  was  also  a  Palestinian  by  birth,  but  as  he  himself  says,  he  sojourned  for 
quite  a  long  time  in  Egypt.  He  was  a  very  learned  man,  and  it  is  evident  indeed  that  he  pub- 
lished many  books,  and  that  he  used  language  thus." 

1  Valesius  adds  brief  extracts  from  other  missals  of  the  same  church,  which  it  is  not  necessary  to  quote  here. 



From  the  Epistle  of  Anns  to  Eusebius,  Bishop  of  Nicomcdia  (in  Thcorloret's  Eccles.  Hist.  I.  5).' 
"  Eusebius,  your  brother  bishop  of  Ccesarca,  Thcoclotius,  Paulinas,  Athanasius,  Gregory,  /Ktius 
and  all  the  bishops  of  the  East,  have  been  condemned  because  they  say  that  God  had  an  exist- 
ence prior  to  that  of  his  Son." 

From  the  Book  of  Marccllits  of  Ancyra  against  the  Aria/is. 

"  Having  happened  upon  a  letter  of  Narcissus,  bishop  of  Neronias,  which  he  wrote  to  one 
Chrestus  and  to  Euphronius  and  to  Eusebius,  in  which  it  seems  that  Hosius,  the  bishop  had 
asked  him  whether  or  not  like  Eusebius  of  Palestine  he  believed  in  the  existence  of  two  essences 
I  read  in  the  writing  that  he  answered  that  he  believed  in  the  existence  of  three  essences." 

Front  the  Synodical  Epistle  of  the  Bishops  of  Egypt,  met  in  the  City  of  Alexandria,  to  All  the 
Bishops  of  the  Catholic  Church  (which  Athanasius  gives  in  his  second  apology  against  the 

"  For  what  sort  of  a  council  of  bishops  was  that?  What  sort  of  an  assembly  having  truth  for 
its  aim?  Who  out  of  the  great  majority  of  them  was  not  our  enemy?  Did  not  the  followers  of 
Eusebius  rise  up  against  us  on  account  of  the  Arian  madness?  Did  not  they  brin"  forward  the 
others  who  held  the  same  opinions  as  themselves?  Were  we  not  continually  writing  against  them 
as  against  those  who  held  the  opinions  of  Arius?  Was  not  Eusebius  of  Cajsarea  in  Palestine 
accused  by  our  confessors  of  sacrificing?  " 

Epiphanius  in  the  Heresy  of  the  Meletians  (Hat:  LXVIII.). 

"  The  emperor  upon  hearing  these  things  becomes  very  angry  and  orders  that  a  synod  lie  con- 
voked in  Phoenicia  in  the  city  of  Tyre ;  he  also  gave  orders  that  Eusebius  and  some  others  should 
act  as  judges  :  these  persons  moreover  had  leaned  somewhat  too  far  toward  the  vulgarity  of 
the  Arians.  There  were  also  summoned  the  bishops  of  the  Catholic  Church  in  Egypt  also  certain 
men  subject  to  Athanasius,  who  were  likewise  great  and  who  kept  their  lives  transparent' before  God 
among  whom  was  the  great  Potamo  of  blessed  memory,  bishop  and  confessor  of  Heraclea  But 
there  were  also  present  Meletians,  the  chief  accusers  of  Athanasius.  Being  zealous  for  truth  and  for 
orthodoxy,  the  above-mentioned  Potamo  of  blessed  memory,  a  free-spoken  man  who  regarded  the 
person  of  no  man,  —  for  he  had  been  deprived  of  an  eye  in  the  persecution  for  the  truth  —  seeing 
Eusebius  sitting  down  and  acting  as  judge,  and  Athanasius  standing  up,  overcome  by  grief  and 
weeping,  as  is  the  wont  with  true  men,  he  addressed  Eusebius  in  a  loud  voice,  saying  '  Dost  thou 
sit  down,  Eusebius,  and  is  Athanasius,  an  innocent  man,  judged  by  thee?  Who  could  bear  such 
Do  thou  tell  me,  wert  thou  not  in  confinement  with  me  at  the  time  of  the  persecution? 
I  have  parted  with  an  eye  for  the  sake  of  the  truth,  but  thou  neither  seemest  to  be  maimed  at 
all  in  body,  nor  hast  thou  suffered  martyrdom,  but  art  alive,  and  in  no  part  mutilated  How 
didst  thou  escape  from  the  confinement  unless  that  thou  didst  promise  those  who  have  inflicted 
upon  us  the  violence  of  persecution  to  perform  the  ungodly  act,  or  didst  actually  perform  it?'" 

From  the  Epistle  of  the  Catholic  Bishops  of  Egypt  to  the  Synod  of  Tyre  (which  Athanasius  gives  in 

the  above-mentioned  Apology). 

"iF°r  y,e,,als°  kn,OW'  as  wc  have  said  before>  that  they  are  our  enemies,  and   ye  know  why 
husebms  of  Cresarea  has  become  our  enemy  since  last  year." 

Athanasius  in  his  Epistle  on  the  Decrees  of  the  Council  of  Nicaa. 

"The  strange  thing  is  that  Eusebius  of  Cresarea  in  Palestine,  who  had  denied  on  one  day  but 
inextdayhad  subscribed,  sent  to  his  church,  saying  that  this  is  the  faith  of  the  Church, 

1  This  extract  is  not  given  by  Valesius. 
F  2 


ml  tint  this  is  the  tradition  of  the  Fathers.  I  Ie  plainly  showed  to  all  that  before  they  had  been 
'in  error  and  had  been  vainly  striving  after  the  truth  ;  for  although  he  was  then  ashamed  to  write 

!  just  these  terms,  and  excused  himself  to  the  Church  as  he  himself  wished,  yet  he  plainly  wishes 
to  imply  this  in  his  Epistle,  by  his  not  denying  the  '  Homoousion,"  one  in  substance,  and  of 
the  substance  '  I  Ie  cot  into  serious  difficulty,  for  in  defending  himself,  he  went  on  to  accuse  the 
\rians,  because,  having  written  that  '  the  Son  did  not  exist  before  that  he  was  begotten,  they 
thereby  denied  that  he  existed  before  his  birth  in  the  llcsh." 

The  same,  in  his  Treatise  on  the  Synods  of  Arimimtm  and  Seleucia. 

"Most  of  all  what  would  Acacius  say  to  Euscbius  his  own  teacher?  who  not  only  signed  in 
the  synod  'it  NICSM  but  also  made  it  known  by  letter  to  the  people  under  him  that  that  was  the 
true 'faith  which  had  been  agreed  upon  at  the  council  of  Nioea  :  for  although  he  defended  him- 
self 'is  he' pleased  through  the  letter,  yet  he  did  not  deny  the  grounds  taken.  Hut  he  also  accused 
the  Arians,  since,  in  saying  that  'the  Son  did  not  exist  before  that  he  was  begotten/ they  als 
deny  that  he  existed  before  Mary." 

The  same,  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Bishops  of  Africa. 

"This  also  was  known  all  the  while  to  Eusebius,  bishop  of  Csesarea,  who,  at  first  identifying 
himself  with  the   Arian   heresy,  and   having   afterwards  signed  at  the  self-same  synod  of  Nioea 
wrote  to  his  own  particular  friends,  firmly  maintaining  that,  'We  have  known  of  certain  learned 
and  renowned  bishops  and  writers  among  the  ancients  who  have  used  the  term  6/*ooucnos  in  ref 
ence  to  the  divinity  of  the  Father  and  Son.'  " 

The  same,  in  his  Treatise  on  the  Synods  of  Ariminum  and  Seleueia. 

"Eusebius  of  Cresarea  in  Palestine,  writing  to  Euphration  the  bishop,  did  not  fear  to  say 
openly  that  Christ  is  not  true  God." 

Jerome,  in  his  Epistle  to  Ctcsiphon  against  the  Pelagians. 

"  He  did  this  in  the  name  of  the  holy  martyr  Pamphilus,  that  he  might  designate  with  the 
name  of  the  martyr  Pamphilus  the  first  of  the  six  books  in  defense  of  Origen  which  were  written 
by  Eusebius  of  Cresarea,  whom  every  one  knows  to  have  been  an  Arian." 

The  same,  in  his  Second  Book  against  Rufinus. 

"  As  soon  as  he  leaves  the  harbor  he  runs  his  ship  aground.  For,  quoting  from  the  Apology 
of  Pamphilus  the  Martyr  (which  we  have  proved  to  be  the  work  of  Eusebius,  prince  of  Arians)," 

The  same,  in  his  First  Book  against  Rufinus. 

"  Eusebius,  bishop  of  Crcsarea,  of  whom  I  have  made  mention  above,  in  the  sixth  book  of  his 
Apology  VD.  behalf  of  Origen,  lays  this  same  charge  against  Methodius  the  bishop  and  martyr, 
which  you  lay  against  me  in  my  praises  [of  him]  ;  he  says  :  '  1  low  did  Methodius  dare  to  write 
against  Origen  after  having  said  this  and  that  concerning  his  opinions?  '  This  is  no  place  to  speak 
in  behalf  of  a  martyr,  for  not  all  things  ought  to  be  discussed  in  all  places.  Now  let  it  suffice  to 
have  barely  touched  upon  the  matter,  that  this  same  thing  was  charged  against  a  most  renowned 
and  most  eloquent  martyr  by  an  Arian,  which  you  as  a  friend  praise  in  me,  and,  being  offended, 
censure  me  for." 

The  same,  in  his  Epistle  to  Minervius  and  Alexander. 

"  I  both  in  manhood  and  in  extreme  old  age  am  of  the  same  opinion,  that  Origen  and  Euse- 
bius of  Cresarea  were  indeed  very  learned  men,  but  went  astray  in  the  truth  of  their  opinions." 

Socrates,  in  the  First  Book  of  his  Eeelesiastieal History  (chap.  23). 

"  Eusebius  Pamphilus  says  that  immediately  after  the  Synod  Egypt  became  agitated  by  intes- 
tine divisions  ;  but  as  he  does  not  assign  the  reason  for  this,  some  have  accused  him  of  disingen- 
uousness,  and  have  even  attributed  his  failure  to  specify  the  causes  of  these  dissensions  to  a 
determination  on  his  part  not  to  give  his  sanction  to  the  proceedings  at  Nice." 


Again,  in  the  same  chapter. 

"Eustathius,  bishop  of  Antioch,  accuses  Euscbius  Pamphilus  of  perverting  the  Nicene  Creed  • 
but  Eusebius  denies  that  he  violates  that  exposition  of  the  faith,  and  recriminates,  saying  that 
Eustathius  was  a  defender  of  the  opinion  of  Sabellius.  In  consequence  of  these  misunderstand- 
ings, each  of  them  wrote  volumes  as  if  contending  against  adversaries  :  and  although  it  was 
admitted  on  both  sides  that  the  Son  of  God  has  a  distinct  person  and  existence,  and  all  acknowl- 
edged that  there  is  one  God  in  a  Trinity  of  Persons  ;  yet,  from  what  cause  I  am  unable  to  divine, 
they  could  not  agree  among  themselves,  and  therefore  were  never  at  peace." 

Thcodoritus,  in  his  Interpretation  of  the  Epistle  of  Paul  to  the  Jlebrews,  speaking  of  the  Aria/is, 

writes  as  follows : 

"  If  not  even  this  is  sufficient  to  persuade  them,  it  at  least  behooves  them  to  believe  Eusebius 
of  Palestine,  whom  they  call  the  chief  advocate  of  their  own  doctrines." 

Nice/as,  in.  his  Thesaurus  of  the  Orthodox  Faith,  Book  V.  Chap.  7. 

"  Moreover,  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  relates  that  there  were  only  nine  persons  out  of  all 
whom  the  decrees  of  the  Synod  did  not  please,  and  that  their  names  are  as  follows  :  Theognis  of 
Nicsea,  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia,  Patrophilus  of  Scythopolis,  Eusebius  of  Cajsarea  in  Palestine, 
Narcissus  of  Neronias  in  Cilicia,  which  is  now  called  Irenopolis,  Paulinus  of  lyre,  Menophantus 
of  Ephesus,  Secundus  of  Ptolemai's,  which  borders  upon  Egypt,  and  Theonas  of  Marmarica."  1 

Antipater,  Bishop  of  Bostra,  in  his  First  Book  against  Eusebius'  Apology  for  Origen. 
"  I  deny  that  the  man  has  yet  arrived  at  an  accurate  knowledge  of  the  doctrines  ;  wherefore 
he  ought  to  be  given  place  to  so  far  as  regards  his  great  learning,  but  as  regards  his  knowledge 
of  doctrine  he  ought  not.     But,  moreover,  we  know  him  to  have  been  altogether  lacking  in  such 
accurate  knowledge." 

And  a  little  farther  on. 

'So  now,  that  we  may  not  seem  to  be  trampling  upon  the  man,  —  concerning  whom  it  is  not 
our  purpose  for  the  present  to  speak,  —  examining  into  the  accuracy  of  his  Apology,  we  may  go  on 
to  show  that  both  were  heretics,  both  he  who  composed  the  Apology,  and  he  in  whose  behalf  it 
was  composed." 

And  farther  on. 

"For  as  to  your  attempting  to  show  that  others  as  well  as  he  [Origen]  have  spoken  of  the 
subordination  of  the  Son  to  the  Father,  we  may  not  at  first  wonder  at  it,  for  such  is  your  opinion 
and  that  of  your  followers  ;  wherefore  we  say  nothing  concerning  this  matter  for  the  present, 
since  it  was  long  ago  submitted  and  condemned  at  the  general  Council." 

From  the  Acts  of  the  Seventh    (Ecumenical   Council. 

"For  who  of  the  faithful  ones  in  the  Church,  and  who  of  those  who  have  obtained  a  knowl- 
edge of  true  doctrine,  does  not  know  that  Eusebius  Pamphili  has  given  himself  over  to  false  ways 
of  thinking,  and  has  become  of  the  same  opinion  and  of  the  same  mind  with  those  who  follow  after 
the  opinions  of  Arius?  In  all  his  historical  books  he  calls  the  Son  and  Word  of  God  a  creature,  a 
servant,  and  to  be  adored  as  second  in  rank.  But  if  any  speaking  in  his  defense  say  that  he  sub- 
scribed in  the  council,  we  may  admit  that  that  is  true  ;  but  while  with  his  lips  he  has  respected 
the  truth,  in  his  heart  he  is  far  from  it,  as  all  his  writings  and  epistles  go  to  show,  lint  if  from 
time  to  time,  on  account  of  circumstances  or  from  different  causes,  he'  has  become  confused  or 
has  changed  around,  sometimes  praising  those  who  hold  to  the  doctrines  of  Arius,  and  at  other 
tunes  feigning  the  truth,  he  shows  himself  to  be,  according  to  James  the  brother  of  our  Lord,  a 
double-minded  man,  unstable  in  all  his  ways  ;  and  let  him  "not  think  that  he  shall  receive  anything 
of  the  Lord.  For  if  with  the  heart  he  had  believed  unto  righteousness,  and  with  the  mouth  had 
confessed  the  truth  unto  salvation,  he  would  have  asked  forgiveness  for  his  writings,  at  the  same 
time  correcting  them.  But  this  he  has  by  no  means  done,  for  he  remained  like  ^thiops  with  his 
skin  unchanged.  In  interpreting  the  verse  '  I  said  to  the  Lord,  Thou  art  my  Lord,'  he  has  strayed 
far  away  from  the  true  sense,  for  this  is  what  he  says  :  '  By  the  laws  of  nature  every  son's  father 

1  Valesiiis  inserts  after  this  extract  a  brief  and  unimportant  quo-     —  severed  as  it  is  from  its  context,  which  is  not  accessible  to  me,  — 
tation  irom  Eulogms  of  Alexandria,  which,  however,  is  so  obscure,     that  no  translation  of  it  has  been  attempted. 


must  be  his  lord  ;  wherefore  Cod  who  begat  him  must  be  at  the  same  time  Clod,  Lord,  and  Father 
of  the  only-begotten  Son  of  Cod.'  So  also  in  his  epistle  to  the  holy  Alexander,  the  teacher  of  the 
great  Athanasius,  which  begins  thus  :  '  \Vith  what  anxiety  and  with  what  care  have  I  set  about 
writing  this  letter/  in  most  open  blasphemy  he  speaks  as  follows  concerning  Arius  and  his  fol- 
lowers :  •  Thy  letter  accuses  them  of  saying  that  the  Son  was  made  out  of  nothing,  like  all  men. 
Hut  they  have  produced  their  own  epistle  which  they  wrote  to  thee,  in  which  they  give  an  account 
of  their  faith,  and  expressly  confess  that  "  the  Cod  of  the  law  and  of  the  prophets  and  of  the  New 
Testament,  before  eternal  ages  begat  an  only-begotten  Son.  through  whom  also  he  made  the  ages 
and  the  universe  ;  and  that  he  begat  him  not  in  appearance,  but  in  truth,  and  subjected  him  to  "his 
own  will,  unchangeable  and  immutable,  a  perfect  creature  of  Cod,  but  not  as  one  of  the  creatures." 
If,  therefore,  the  letter  received  from  them  tells  the  truth,  they  wholly  contradict  thee,  in  that  they 
confess  that  the  Son  of  Cod  who  existed  before  eternal  ages,  and  through  whom  he  made  the 
world,  is  unchangeable  and  a  perfect  creature  of  Cod,  but  not  as  one  of 'the  creatures.  But  thy 
epistle  accuses  them  of  saying  that  the  Son  was  made  as  one  of  the  creatures.  They  do  not  say 
this,  but  clearly  declare  that  he  was  not  as  one  of  the  creatures.  See  if  cause  is  not  immediately 
given  them  again  to  attack  and  to  misrepresent  whatever  they  please.  Again  thou  fmdest  fault 
with  them  for  saying  that  He  who  is  begat  him  who  was  not.  I  wonder  if  any  one  is  able  to  say 
anything  else  than  that.  For  if  He  who  is  is  one,  it  is  plain  that  everything  has  been  made  by 
Him  and  after  I  lim.  lUit  if  I  le  who  is  is  not  the  only  one,  but  there  was  also  a  Son  existing,  how 
did  He  who  is  beget  him  who  was  existing?  I -'or  thus  those  existing  would  be  two.'  These  things 
then  Fusebius  wrote  to  the  illustrious  Alexander  ;  but  there  are  also  other  epistles  of  his  directed 
to  the  same  holy  man,  in  which  are  found  various  blasphemies  in  defense  of  the  followers  of  Arius. 
So  also,  in  writing  to  the  bishop  Fuphration,  he  blasphemes  most  openly;  his  letter  begins  thus: 
I  return  to  my  Lord  all  thanks  '  ;  and  farther  on  :  '  For  we  do  not  say  that  the  Son  was  with  the 
Father,  but  that  the  Father  was  before  the  Son.  But  the  Son  of  Cod  himself,  knowing  well  that 
he  was  greater  than  all,  and  knowing  that  he  was  other  than  the  Father,  and  less  than  and  subject 
to  Him,  very  piously  teaches  this  to  us  also  when  he  says,  "The  Father  who  sent  me  is  greater 
than  I.  And  farther  on  :  'Since  the  Son  also  is  himself  Cod,  but  not  true  Cod.'  So  then  from 
these  writings  of  his  he  shows  that  he  holds  to  the  doctrines  of  Arius  and  his  followers.  And  with 
this  rebellious  heresy  of  theirs  the  inventors  of  that  Arian  madness  hold  to  one  nature  in  hypo- 
static  union,  and  affirm  that  our  Lord  took  upon  himself  a  body  without  soul,  in  his  scheme  of 
redemption,  affirming  that  the  divine  nature  supplied  the  purposes  and  movements  of  the  soul  : 
that,  as  Gregory  the  Divine  says,  they  may  ascribe  suffering  to  the  Deity;  and  it  is  evident  that 
those  who  ascribe  suffering  to  the  Deity  are  Patripassians.  Those  who  share  in  this  heresy  do  not 
ow  images,  as  the  impious  Severus  did  not,  and  Peter  Cnapheus,  and  Philoxenus  of  Hierapolis, 
and  all  their  followers,  the  many-headed  yet  headless  hydra.  So  then  Eusebius,  who  belongs  to 
this  faction,  as  has  been  shown  from  his  epistles  and  historical  writings,  as  a  Patripassian  rejected 
the  image  of  Christ,"  etc.1 

Photins,  in  his  1 44th  Epistle  to  Constantine. 

•'That  Fusebius  (whether  slave  or  friend  of  Pamphilus  I  know  not)  was  carried  off  by  Arian- 
ism,  his  books  loudly  proclaim.  And  he,  feeling  repentance  as  he  pretends,  and  against  his  will 
confesses  to  his  infirmity;  although  by  his  repentance  he  rather  shows  that  he  has  not  repented'. 
For  he  cannot  show,  by  means  of  those  writings  in  which  he  would  seem  to  be  defending  himself, 
that  he  has  withdrawn  from  his  former  heretical  doctrines,  nor  can  he  show  that  he  agreed  with  the 
icumenical  Synod.  But  he  speaks  of  it  as  a  marvel  that  the  upholders  of  the  Homo- 
ousion  should  concur  with  him  in  sentiment  and  agree  with  him  in  opinion:  and  this  fact  both 
many  other  things  and  the  epistle  written  by  him  to  his  own  people  at  Crcsarea  accurately  con- 
firm. But  that  from  the  beginning  he  inwardly  cherished  the  Arian  doctrines,  and  that  up  to  the 
end  of  his  life  he  did  not  cease  following  them,  many  know,  and  it  is  easy  to  gather  it  from  many 
but  that  he  shared  also  in  the  infirmity  of  Origen,  namely,  the  error  with  regard  to  the 
common  resurrection  of  us  all,  is  to  most  persons  unknown.  But  if  thou  thyself  examine  carefully 
his  books,  thou  shalt  see  that  he  was  none  the  less  truly  overcome  by  that  deadly  disease  than  he 
was  by  the  Arian  madness." 

Photius,  in  his  Bibliothcca  (chap.  13). 

"  Of  the  Objection  a>u!  Defense  of  Fusebius  two  books  have  been  read  ;  also  other  two,  which 
although  differing  in  some  respects  from  the  former  two,  are  in  other  respects  the  same  with' regard 

'  This  extract  is  translated  from  the  original  Greek  of  the  Acts  of    and  Cossartius  in   their  Concilia,  Tom.  VII.  p.  405  sq  )       Vilesius 
the  Second  N.cene  Council,  Act  V  I.  lom.  V.  (as  g.vcn  by   Labbc     give,  only  a  Latin  translation,  and  that  iu  a  fragmentary  form 


to  both  diction  and  thought.  But  lie  presents  certain  difficulties  with  regard  to  our  blameless 
religion  as  having  originated  with  the  Greeks.  These  he  correctly  solves,  although  not  in  all 
cases.  But  as  regards  his  diction,  it  is  by  no  means  either  pleasing  or  brilliant.  The  man  is 
indeed  very  learned,  although  as  regards  shrewdness  of  mind  and  firmness  of  character,  as  well 
as  accuracy  in  doctrine,  he  is  deficient.  For  also  in  many  places  in  these  books  it  is  plain  to  be 
seen  that  he  blasphemes  against  the  Son,  calling  him  a  second  cause,  and  general-in-chief,  and 
other  terms  which  have  had  their  origin  in  the  Arian  madness.  It  seems  that  he  flourished  in  the 
time  of  Constantine  the  Great.  He  was  also  an  ardent  admirer  of  the  excellences  of  the  holy 
martyr  1'amphilus,  for  which  cause  some  say  that  he  took  from  him  the  surname  1'amphili." 

Photius,  in  the  Same  Work  (chap.  127). 

''There  has  been  read  the  work  of  Eusebius  1'amphili  ///  /raise  of  tlie  great  emperor  Con- 
stantine, consisting  of  four  books.  In  this  is  contained  the  whole  life  of  the  man,  starting  with 
his  very  boyhood,  also  whatever  deeds  of  his  belong  to  ecclesiastical  history,  until  he  departed 
from  life  at  the  age  of  sixty-four.  Eusebius  is,  however,  even  in  this  work,  like  himself  in  diction, 
except  that  his  discourse  has  risen  to  a  somewhat  more  than  usual  brilliancy,  and  that  sometimes 
he  has  made  use  of  more  flowery  expressions  than  he  is  wont.  However,  of  pleasantness  and 
beauty  of  expression  there  is  little,  as  indeed  is  the  case  in  his  other  works.  He  inserts,  more- 
over, in  this  work  of  his  in  four  books  very  many  passages  from  the  whole  decalogue  of  his 
Ecclesiastical  History.  He  says  that  Constantine  the  Great  himself  also  was  baptized  in  Nicomc- 
dia,  he  having  put  off  his  baptism  until  then,  because  he  desired  to  be  baptized  in  the  Jordan. 
Who  baptized  him  he  does  not  clearly  show.  However,  as  to  the  heresy  of  Arius,  he  does  not  defi- 
nitely state  whether  he  holds  that  opinion,  or  whether  he  has  changed  ;  or  even  whether  Arius 
held  correct  or  incorrect  views,  although  he  ought  to  have  made  mention  of  these  things,  because 
the  synod  occupied  an  important  place  among  the  deeds  of  Constantine  the  Great,  and  it  again 
demands  a  detailed  account  of  them.  But  he  does  state  that  a  '  controversy  '  arose  between  Arius 
and  Alexander  (this  is  the  name  he  cunningly  gives  to  the  heresy),  and  that  the  God-fearing 
prince  was  very  much  grieved  at  this  controversy,  and  strove  by  epistles  and  through  Hosius,  who 
was  then  bishop  of  Cordova,  to  bring  back  the  dissenting  parties  into  peace  and  concord,  they  hav- 
ing laid  aside  the  strife  existing  between  them  with  regard  to  such  questions  ;  and  that  when  he 
could  not  persuade  them  to  do  this  he  convoked  a  synod  from  all  quarters,  and  that  it  dissolved 
into  peace  the  strife  that  had  arisen.  These  things,  however,  are  not  described  accurately  or 
clearly;  it  would  seem  then  that  he  is  ashamed,  as  it  were,  and  does  not  wish  to  make  public  the 
vote  cast  against  Arius  in  the  Synod,  and  the  just  retribution  of  those  who  were  his  companions 
in  impiety  and  who  were  cast  out  together  with  him.  Finally,  he  does  not  even  mention  the  terri- 
ble fate  which  was  inflicted  by  God  upon  Arius  in  the  sight  of  all.  None  of  these  things  he  brings 
to  the  light,  nor  has  he  drawn  up  an  account  of  the  Synod  and  the  things  that  were  done  in  it. 
Whence,  also,  when  about  to  write  a  narrative  concerning  the  divine  Eustathius,  he  does  not  even 
mention  his  name,  nor  what  things  were  threatened  and  executed  against  him  ;  but  referring 
these  things  also  to  sedition  and  tumult,  he  again  speaks  of  the  calmness  of  the  bishops,  who 
having  been  convened  in  Antioch  by  the  zeal  and  cooperation  of  the  Emperor,  changed  the  sedi- 
tion and  tumult  into  peace.  Likewise  as  to  what  things  were  maliciously  contrived  against  the 
ever-conquering  Athanasius,  when  he  set  about  making  his  history  cover  these  things,  he  says  that 
Alexandria  again  was  filled  with  sedition  and  tumult,  and  that  this  was  calmed  by  the  coming  of 
the  bishops,  who  had  the  imperial  aid.  But  he  by  no  means  makes  it  clear  who  was  the  leader 
of  the  sedition,  what  sort  of  sedition  it  was,  or  by  what  means  the  strife  was  settled.  He  also 
keeps  up  almost  the  same  mode  of  dissimulating  in  his  account  of  the  contentions  existing  among 
bishops  with  respect  to  doctrines,  and  their  disagreements  on  other  matters." 

Joannes  Zonaras,  in  his  Third  Volume,  in  which  he  relates  the  Deeds  of  Constantine. 

"  Even  Eusebius  Pamphili,  bishop  of  Coesarea  in  Palestine,  was  at  that  time  one  of  those 
who  upheld  the  doctrines  of  Arius.  He  is  said  to  have  afterwards  withdrawn  from  the  opinion 
of  Arius,  and  to  have  become  of  like  mind  with  those  who  hold  that  the  Son  is  coequal  and  of 
the  same  nature  with  the  Father,  and  to  have  been  received  into  communion  by  the  holy  Fathers. 
Moreover,  in  the  Acts  of  the  first  Synod,  he  is  found  to  have  defended  the  faithful.  These  things 
are  found  thus  narrated  by  some  ;  but  he  makes  them  to  appear  doubtful  by  certain  things  which 
he  is  seen  to  have  written  in  his  Ecclesiastical  History.  For  in  many  places  in  the  above- 
mentioned  work  he  seems  to  be  following  after  Arius.  In  the  very  beginning  of  his  book,  where 
he  quotes  David  as  saying,  '  He  spake  and  they  were  made,  he  commanded  and  they  were  estab- 


lulled.'  he  says  th;it  tin.-  Father  and  Maker  is  to  be  considered  as  maker  and  universal  ruler, 
governing  by  a  kingly  nod,  and  that  the  second  after  him  in  authority,  the  divine  Word,  is  sub- 
ject to  the  commands  of  the  Father.  Anil  farther  on  he  says,  that  he,  as  being  the  power  and 
wisdom  of  the  father,  is  entrusted  with  the  second  place  in  the  kingdom  and  rule  over  all. 
And  again,  a  little  farther  on,  that  there  is  also  a  certain  essence,  living  and  subsisting  before  the 
world,  which  ministers  to  the  Cod  and  father  of  the  universe  for  the  creation  of  things  that 
are  created.  Also  Solomon,  in  the  person  of  the  wisdom  of  Cod,  says,  'The  Lord  created  me 
in  the  beginning  of  his  ways,'  etc.,  and  farther  on  he  says:  And  besides  all  this,  as  the  pre- 
existent  word  ol  Cod,  who  also  preexisted  before  all  ages  created,  he  received  divine  honor  from 
the  Father,  and  is  worshipped  as  Cod.  These  and  other  things  show  that  Kusebius  agreed  with 
Anan  doctrines,  unless  some  one  say  that  they  were  written  before  his  conversion." 

s,  uiiilcr  tJic  word  Aio'8oyws. 

"Diodorus,  a  monk,  who  was  bishop  of  Tarsus  in  Cilicia,  in  the  times  of  Julian  and  Valens, 
wrote  divers  works,  as  Theodorus  Lector  states  in  his  Juclcsias/ical  History.  These  are  as  fol- 
lows :  A  Chronicle,  which  corrects  the  error  of  Eusebius  Pamphilus  with  regard  to  chronology," 

The  same  Sit  idas,  from  Sophronius. 

"Eusebius  I'amphili,  a  devotee  of  the  Arian  heresy,  bishop  of  Cffisarea  in  Palestine,  a  man 
zealous  in  the  study  of  the  holy  Scriptures,  and  along  with  Pamphilus  the  martyr  a  most  careful 
investigator  of  sacred  literature,  has  published  many  books,  among  which  are  the  following."  ! 



BOOK    I. 

<  'HAP.  I.  — The  plan  of  the  work Si 

CHAP.  II. — Summary  view  of  the  pre-existence  and  divinity  of  our  Saviour  and  Lord  Jesus  Christ 82 

CHAP.  III. — The  name  Jesus  and  also  the  name  Christ  were  known  from  the  beginning,  and  were  honored 

by  the  inspired  prophets 85 

CHAP.  IV.  — The  religion  proclaimed  by  him  to  all  nations  was  neither  new  nor  strange 87 

CHAP.  V.  —  The  time  of  his  appearance  among  men 88 

CHAP.  VI.  —  About  the  time  of  Christ,  in  accordance  with  prophecy,  the  rulers  who  had  governed  the  Jewish 
nation  in  regular  succession  from  the  days  of  antiquity  came  to  an  end,  and  Herod,  the  first  foreigner, 

became  king 89 

CHAP.  VII.  — The  alleged  discrepancy  in  the  Gospels  in  regard  to  the  genealogy  of  Christ 91 

CHAP.  VIII.  — The  cruelty  of  Ilerod  toward  the  infants,  and  the  manner  of  his  death 94 

CHAP.  IX.  — The  times  of  Pilate 96 

CHAP.  X.  —  The  high  priests  of  the  Jews  under  whom  Christ  taught 96 

CHAP.  XI.  — Testimonies  in  regard  to  John  the  Baptist  and  Christ 97 

CHAP.  XII.  —  The  disciples  of  our  Saviour 98 

CHAP.  XIII.  —  Narrative  concerning  the  Prince  of  the  Edessenes 100 



CHAP.  I.  —  The  course  pursued  by  the  apostles  after  the  ascension  of  Christ , 103 

CHAP.  II.  —  How  Tiberius  was  affected  when  informed  by  Pilate  concerning  Christ 105 

CHAP.  III.  —The  doctrine  of  Christ  soon  spread  throughout  all  the  world  107 

CHAP.  IV.  —  After  the  death  of  Tiberius,  Caius  appointed  Agrippa  king  of  the  Jews,  having  punished  Herod 

with  perpetual  exile 107 

CHAP.  V.  — -  Philo's  embassy  to  Caius  in  behalf  of  the  Jews 108 

CHAP.  VI.  — The  misfortunes  which  overwhelmed  the  Jews  after  their  presumption  against  Christ 109 

CHAP.  VII.  —  Pilate's  suicide 110 

CHAP.  VIII.  — 'I'hc  famine  which  took  place  in  the  reign  of  Claudius no 

CHAP.  IX. — The  martyrdom  of  James  the  apostle no 

CHAP.  X.  —  Agrippa,  who  was  also  called  Ilerod,  having  persecuted  the  apostles,  immediately  experienced  the 

Divine  vengeance in 

CHAP.  XI.  —  The  impostor  Theudas  and  his  followers 112 

CHAP.  XII.  —  I  lelen,  the  queen  of  the  Osrhcenians 113 

CHAP.  XIII.  —  Simon  Magus 113 

CHAP.  XIV.  — The  preaching  of  the  apostle  Peter  in  Rome 115 

CHAP.  XV.  — The  C.ospel  according  to  Mark 115 

CHAP.  XVI.  —  Mark  first  proclaimed  Christianity  to  the  inhabitants  of  Egypt 1 16 

71  Till-;    CHURCH    HISTORY    OF    KUSKBIUS. 

CHAP.  XVII.  —  Philo's  account  of  the  ascetics  of  Kgypt I J7 

CiiAP.  XVI II.  — The  works  of  I'hilo  that  have  conic  down  to  us rin 

ClIAP.  XIX.  —  The  calamity  which  befell  the  Jews  in  Jerusalem  on  the  day  of  the  Passover 122 

CHAP.  XX.  —  The  events  which  took  place  in  Jerusalem  during  the  reign  of  Xcro 122 

CHAP.  XXI.  —  The  Egyptian  who  is  mentioned  also  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles , 123 

CHAP.  XXII.  —  Paul,  having  been  sent  bound  from  judea  to  Rome,  made  his  defense,  and  was  acquitted  of 

every  charge  .  ,2^ 

CHAP.  XXIII.  —  The  martyrdom  of  James,  who  was  called  the  brother  of  the  Lord 125 

CHAP.  XXIV.  --  Annianus,  the  lust  bishop  of  the  church  of  Alexandria  after  Mark 128 

(  IIAP.  XX\  .  —  The  persecution  under  Nero,  in  which  Paul  and  Peter  were  honored  at  Rome  with  martyrdom 

in  In-half  of  religion I2^ 

CHAP.  XXVI. —The  Jews,  afflicted  with  innumerable  evils,  commenced  the  last  war  against  the  Romans  130 

HOOK     III. 

CHAP.  I. —  The  parts  of  the  world  in  which  the  apostles  preaehed  Christ i-,2 

CHAP.  II. — The  first  ruler  of  the  church  of  Rome  .  . 

'  Jj 

CHAP.  III. —  The  epistles  of  the  apostles „, 

CHAP.  IV.  — The  first  successors  of  the  apostles j  ,g 

Cn  \p.  V.  — The  last  siege  of  the  Jews  after  Christ ,-,{j 

CHAP.  VI.  —  The  famine  which  oppressed  them.  . 

*  39 

CHAP.  VII.  —  The  predictions  of  Christ I4I 

CHAP.  VIII.  —  The  signs  which  preceded  the  war ,,2 

CHAP.  IX.  —  Josephus  and  the  works  which  he  has  left I4, 

CiiAP.  X.  — The  manner  in  which   Josephus  mentions  the  divine  books I4_, 

CHAP.  XI. —  Simeon  rules  the  church  of  Jerusalem  after  James I4u 

CHAP.  XII.  — Vespasian  commands  the  descendants  of  David  to  be  sought    146 

CHAP.  XIII.  —  Anencletus,  the  second  bishop  of  Rome I47 

CHAP.  XIV.  —  Abilius,  the  second  bishop  of  Alexandria I47 

CHAP.  XV.  —  Clement,  the  third  bishop  of  Rome .  I47 

CHAP.  XVI.— The  epistle  of  Clement ,   _ 

CHAP.  XVII.  —  The  persecution  under  Domitian ,47 

CHAP.  XVIII.  —  The  apostle  John  and  the  Apocalypse ,4g 

CHAP.  XIX.  —  Domitian  commands  the  descendants  of  David  to  be  slain I48 

CHAP.  XX.  — The  relatives  of  our  Saviour I.Q 

CHAP.  XXL  — C'erdon  becomes  the  third  ruler  of  the  church  of  Alexandria I49 

CHAP.  XXII.  —  Ignatius,  the  second  bishop  of  Antioch I4q 

CHAP.  XXIII.  —  Narrative  concerning  John  the  apostle !  co 

CHAP.  XXIV.  —  The  order  of  the  Gospels ,„ 

CHAP.  XXV.  —The  divine  Scriptures  that  are  accepted,  and  those  that  are  not 155 

CHAP.  XXVI.  —  Menancler,  the  Sorcerer K7 

CHAP.  XXVII.  —  The  heresy  of  the  Ebionites ,,3 

CHAP.  XXVIII.  — Cerinthus,  the   hercsiarch l6o 

CHAP.  XXIX.  —  Nicolaus,  and  the  sect  named  after  him K3! 

CHAP.  XXX.  —  The  apostles  that  were  married ,5! 

CHAP.  XXXI.  — The  death  of  John  and  Philip l6^ 

CHAP.  XXXII.  —  Syracon,  bishop  of  Jerusalem,  suffers  martyrdom ,5, 

CHAP.  XXXIII.  —  Trajan  forbids  the  Christians  to  be  sought  after i64 


I  Al.K 

CHAP.  XXXIV.  —  Evarestus,  the  fourth  bishop  of  the  church  of  Koine \(>G 

CHAP.  XXXV.  —  Justus,  the  third  bishop  of  Jerusalem i  M> 

CHAP.  XXXVI.  —  Ignatius  and  his  epistles i(,i, 

CHAP.  XXXVII.  —  The  evangelists  that  were  still  eminent  at  that  time 169 

CHAP.  XXXVIII.  —The  epistles  of  Clement,  and  the  writings  falsely  ascribed  to  him 169 

CHAP.  XXXIX.  —  The  writings  of  Fapias 1 70 

BOOK    IV. 

CHAP.  I.  —  The  bishops  of  Rome  and  of  Alexandria  during  the  reign  of  Trajan 174 

CHAP.  II.  —  The  calamities  of  the  Jews  during  Trajan's  reign i  7  j. 

CHAP.  III.  — The  Apologists  that  wrote  in  defense  of  the  faith  during  the  reign  of  Adrian 175 

CHAP.  IV.  —  The  bishops  of  Rome  and  of  Alexandria  under  the  same  emperor 175 

CHAP.  V. — The  bishops  of  Jerusalem,  from  the  age  of  our  Saviour  to  the  period  under  consideration 176 

CHAP.  VI.  —  The  last  siege  of  the  Jews  under  Adrian 177 

CHAP.  VII.  —  The  persons  that  became  at  that  time  leaders  of  knowledge  falsely  so-called 178 

CHAP.  VIII.  —  Ecclesiastical  writers 180 

CHAP.  IX.  —  The  epistle  of  Adrian,  decreeing  that  we  should  not  be  punished  without  a  trial 182 

CHAP.  X.  —  The  bishops  of  Rome  and  of  Alexandria  during  the  reign  of  Antoninus 182 

CHAP.  XI.  —  The  heresiarchs  of  that  age 182 

CHAP.  XII.  —  The  apology  of  Justin,  addressed  to  Antoninus 185 

CHAP.  XIII.  —  The  epistle  of  Antoninus  to  the  common  assembly  of  Asia,  in  regard  to  our  doctrine 186 

CHAP.  XIV.  —  The  circumstances  related  of  Folycarp,  a  friend  of  the  apostles 187 

CHAP.  XV.  —  Under  Verus,  Polycarp,  with  others,  suffered  martyrdom  at  Smyrna 188 

CHAP.  XVI.  —  Justin,  the  philosopher,  preaches  the  word  of  Christ  in  Rome,  and  suffers  martyrdom 193 

CHAP.  XVII.  — The  martyrs  whom  Justin  mentions  in  his  own  work 195 

CHAP.  XVIII.  —  The  works  of  Justin  that  have  come  down  to  us 196 

CHAP.  XIX.  —  The  rulers  of  the  churches  of  Rome  and  Alexandria  during  the  reign  of  Verus 197 

CHAP.  XX.  — The  rulers  of  the  church  of  Antioch 197 

CHAP.  XXI.  —  The  ecclesiastical  writers  that  flourished  in  those  days 197 

CHAP.  XXII.  —  Hegesippus,  and  the  events  which  he  mentions 198 

CHAP.  XXIII.  —  Dionysius,  bishop  of  Corinth,  and  the  epistles  which  he  wrote 200 

CHAP.  XXIV.  —  Theophilus,  bishop  of  Antioch 202 

CHAP.  XXV.  —  Philip  and  Modestus 203 

CHAP.  XXVI.  —  Mclito,  and  the  circumstances  which  he  records 203 

CHAP.  XXVII.  —  Apolinarius,  bishop  of  the  church  of  Ilierapolis 206 

CHAP.  XXVIII.  —  Musanus  and  his  writings 207 

CHAP.  XXIX.  —  The  heresy  of  Tatian 207 

CHAP.  XXX.  —  Bardesanes,  the  Syrian,  and  his  extant  works 209 

BOOK   V. 


CHAP.  I. — The  number  of  those  who  fought  for  religion  in  Gaul   under  Verus,  and  the  nature  of  their  con- 
flicts   2H 

CHAP.  II.  —  The  witnesses,  beloved  of  God,  kindly  ministered  to  those  who  fell  in  the  persecution 217 

CHAP.  III.  —  The  vision  which  appeared  in  a  dream  to  the  witness  Attalus 218 

CHAP.  IV.  —  Irenseus  commended  by  the  witnesses  in  a  letter 219 

76  Till-:    CHURCH    HISTORY    OF    KUSKBIUS. 


CilAP.  V.  — Cod  sent  rain  from  heaven  for  Marcus  Aurelius  Cesar,  in  answer  to  the  prayers  of  our  people.  .  .  210, 

CHAP.  VI.  — Catalogue  of  the  bishops  of  Koine 22I 

CHAP.  VII.  —  Even  down  to  those  times  miracles  were  performed  by  the  faithful 22, 

CHAP.  VIII.  —  The  statements  of  in  regard  to  the  Divine  Scriptures 222 

CHAP.  IX. — The  bishops  under  Comniodus 

CHAP.  X.  —  Panta:nus,  the  philosopher 

CHAP.  XI.  —  Clement  of  Alexandria 

CHAP.  XII. — The  bishops  in   Jerusalem ,,  r 

CHAP.  XIII.—  Rhodo,  and  his  account  of  the  dissension  of  Marcion 2^7 

CHAP.  XIV.— The  false  prophets  of  the  Phrygians 22y 

I  HAP.  XV.  —  The  schism  of  Blastus  at  Rome ,,,,( 

CHAP.  XVI.  —The  circumstances  related  of  Montanus  and  his  false  prophets 22() 

CHAP.  XVII.—  Miltiades  and  his  works 

CHAP.  XVIII.  — The  manner  in  which  Apollonius  refuted  the  Phrygians,  and  the  persons  whom  he  mentions.  235 

CHAP.  XIX.  —  Serapion  on  the  heresy  of  the  Phrygians 2,7 

CHAP.  XX.  —The  writings  of  Iremeus  against  the  schismatics  at  Rome 237 

CHAP.  XXI.  —  IIow  Apollonius  suffered  martyrdom  at  Rome 2-,( 

CHAP.  XXII.  —  The  bishops  that  were  well  known  at  this  time 2 

(  HAP.  XXIII.  —The  question  then  agitated  concerning  the  Passover .,„ 

CHAP.  XXIV. —The  disagreement  in  Asia  . 


IIow  all  came  to  an  agreement  respecting  the  Passover 2,, 

CHAP.  XXVI.  —The  elegant  works  of  Irenajus  which  have  come  down  to  us 


CHAP.  XXVII.  — The  works  of  others  that  flourished  at  that  time.  . 


-Those  who  first  advanced  the  heresy  of  Artemon;  their  manner  of  life,  and  how  they  dared 
to  corrupt  the  sacred  Scriptures 


CHAP.  I.  —  The  persecution  under  Severus. . 


CHAP.  II.— The  training  of  Origen  from  childhood 

'HAP.  III.  —  While  still  very  young,  he  taught  diligently  the  word  of  Christ 25! 

CHAP.  IV.  —  The  pupils  of  Origen  that  became  martyrs 

CHAP.  V.  —  Potamiiena  .  . 


CHAP.  VI.  —  Clement  of  Alexandria 


CHAP.  VII.  — The  writer,  Tudas 


CHAP.  VIII.  —  Origen's  daring  deed.  . 


(  HAP.  IX.  —  The  miracles  of  Xarcissus 


ClIAP.  X. — The  bishops  of  Jerusalem. 


CHAP.  XI.  — Alexander.. 


CHAP.  XII.  —  Serapion  and  his  extant  works 

CHAP.  XIII.  — The  writings  of  Clement ^ 

CHAP.  XIV.  —The  Scriptures  mentioned  by  him 

CHAP.  XV.  —  Ileraclas  .. 


CHAP.  XVI.  — Origen's  earnest  study  of  the  Divine  Scriptures 26_ 

CHAP.  XVII. — The  translator  Symmachus 

CHAP.  XVIII.—  Ambrose 

CHAP.  XIX.  —  Circumstances  related  of  Origen 

CHAP.  XX.  —The  extant  works  of  the  writers  of  that  age ofio 



CiiAr.  XXI.  —  The  bishops  that  were  well  known  at  that  time 268 

CHAP.  XXII.  —  The  works  of  Ilippolytus  which  have  reached  vis 269 

CHAT.  XXIII.  —  Origen's  zeal  and  his  elevation  to  the  presbyterate 271 

("HAP.  XXIV.  —  The  commentaries  which  he  prepared  at  Alexandria 271 

CHAP.  XXV.  —  His  review  of  the  canonical  scriptures 272 

CHAP.  XXVI.  —  Ileraclas  becomes  bishop  of  Alexandria 274 

CHAP.  XXVI  I.  —  How  the  bishops  regarded  Origen 274 

CHAP.  XXVIII.  —  The  persecution  under  Maximinus.  . .  274 

('HAP.  XXIX. — •  Fabianus,  who  was  wonderfully  designated  bishop  of  Rome  by  God 274 

CHAP.  XXX.  —  The  pupils  of  Origen 275 

CHAP.  XXXI.  —  Africanus 276 

CHAP.  XXXII.  — The  commentaries  which  Origen  composed  in  Civsarea  in  Palestine 277 

CHAP.  XXXIII.  —  The  error  of  Beryllus 277 

CHAP.  XXXIV.  —  Philip  Crcsar 278 

CHAP.  XXXV.  —  Dionysius  succeeds  Heraclas  in  the  episcopate 278 

CHAP.  XXXVI.  —  Other  works  of  Origen 278 

CHAP.  XXXVII.  — The  dissension  of  the  Arabians 279 

CHAP.  XXXVIII.  — The  heresy  of  the  Elkesites 279 

CHAP.  XXXIX.  —  The  persecution  under  Decius  and  the  sufferings  of  Origen 280 

CHAP.  XL.  —  The  events  which  happened  to  Dionysius 281 

CHAP.  XLI.  —  The  martyrs  in  Alexandria 283 

CHAP.  XLII.  —  Others  of  whom  Dionysius  gives  an  account. .  . . , 285 

CHAP.  XLIII.  —  Novatus,  his  manner  of  life  and  his  heresy 286 

CHAP.  XLIV.  —  Dionysius's  account  of  Serapion 290 

CHAP.  XLV.  —  An  epistle  of  Dionysius  to  Novatus 290 

CHAP.  XLVI.  — Other  epistles  of  Dionysius 291 



CHAP.  I.  — The  wickedness  of  Decius  and  Callus 293 

CHAP.  II.  — The  bishops  of  Rome  in  those  times 293 

CHAP.  III.  —  Cyprian,  and  the  bishops  with  him,  first  taught  that  it  was  necessary  to  purify  by  baptism  those 

converted  from  heresy 294 

CHAP.  IV.  —  The  epistles  which  Dionysius  wrote  on  this  subject 294 

CHAP.  V.  —  The  peace  following  the  persecution 294 

CHAP.  VI.  —  The  heresy  of  Sabellius , 295 

CHAP.  VII. — The  abominable  error  of  the  heretics;  the  Divine  vision  of  Dionysius,  and  the  ecclesiastical 

canon  which  he  received. 

• 295 

CHAP.  VIII.  —  The  heterodoxy  of  Novatus 296 

CHAP.  IX.  —  The  ungodly  baptism  of  the  heretics 297 

CHAP.  X.  —  Valerian,  and  the  persecution  under  him 298 

CHAP.  XI.  — The  events  which  happened  at  this  time  to  Dionysius  and  those  in  Egypt 299 

CHAP.  XII.  —  The  martyrs  in  Cresarea  in  Palestine 302 

CHAP.  XIII.  — The  peace  under  Callienus 302 

CHAP.  XIV.  — The  bishops  that  flourished  at  that  time 303 

CHAP.  XV.  — The  martyrdom  of  Marinus  at  Gusarea 30  ^ 

CHAP.  XVI.  —  Story  in  regard  to  Astyrius 304 


CHAP.  XVII.  -The  signs  at  Paneas  of  the  great  might  of  our  Saviour 

C.iAi'.  XVIII.  -The  statue  which  the  woman  with  an  issue  of  blood  erected. 

CHAP.  XIX.  — The  episcopal  chair  of  fames. 

CHAP.  XX. -The  epistles  of  Dionysius,  in  which  he  also  gives  a  paschal  canon. . 

CHAI>.  XXI.  —The  occurrences  at  Alexandria 

CHAI>.  XXII.— The  pestilence  vrhich  came  upon  them 

CHAP.  XXIII.— The  reign  of  C,allienus 

CHAP.  XXIV.  — Nepos,  ami  his  schism 

<  HAP.  XXV.  — The  apocalypse  of  J,,J,n 

CHAP.  XXVI.— The  epistles  of  Dionysius 3°9 

<  'HAP.  XXVII.  -  Paul  of  Samosata,  and  the  heresy  introduced  l,y  him  at  Antioch 
CHAP.  XXVIII.— The  illustrious  bishops  of  that  time 

;;•  xxxx-~Thaul)  "7Vr  rcfulc"  hy  Ma]chion>  a  ^^'^  te'^^^^.  *i 

I  he  c]>istle  of  the  l.isho])S  against  Paul 

-  The  perversive  heresy  of  the  Manichrcans,  winch  began  at  this  time 

The  distinguished  ecclesiastics  of  our  day,  and  which  of  them  survived  until  the  destruction 

tue  churches 

•    •••      3'7 



-The  events  which  preceded  the  persecution  in  our  times 

CHAP.  II.  —  The  destruction  of  the  churches 323 

CHAP.  III. -The  nature  of  the  conflicts  endured  in  the  persecution  ' ^ 


CHAP.  V.  —  Those  in  Nicomedia 326 

CHAP.  VI.  —  Those  in  the  palace 326 

CHAP.  VII. -The  Egyptians  in  Pho-nicia 32? 

CHAP.  VIII.  — Those  in  Egypt 32S 

CHAP.  IX. —Those  in  Thebais 329 

-  The  writings  of  Phileas  the  martyr,  describing  the  occurrences  at  Alexandria'  ^ 

(.HAP.  XI.  —  Those  in  Phrygia •  •  •     33° 

CHAP.  XII. -Many  others,  both  men  and  women,  who  suffered  in  various  ways .. 

^^.""r. of  .the.:hu:chi  that  evinced  by  thcir  bi°°d  thc  gcnuinencss  °f 'th'e  -«ch 

CHAP.  XIV. -The  character  of  the  enemies  of  religion 

CHAP.  XV.  -The  events  which  happened  to  the  heathen 

THAI-.  XVI.  —The  change  of  affairs  f,,r  the  better.  33'S 

<  HAP.  XVII.  -The  revocation  of  the  rulers .  33S 

APPENDIX     339 




OIAP.  II 342 

CHAP.  Ill 343 

CHAP.  IV 344 




CHAP.  V 347 

CHAP.  VI 347 

CHAP.  VII 348 

CHAP.  VIII 349 

CHAP.  IX 350 

CHAP.  X 35 1 

CHAP.  XI 351 

CHAP.  XII 354 

CHAP.  XIII 354 

BOOK    IX. 

CHAP.  I.  — The  pretended  relaxation 357 

CHAP.  II.  —  The  subsequent  reverse 358 

CHAP.  III.  —  The  newly  erected  statue  at  Antiuch 359 

CHAP.  IV.  —  The  memorials  against  us 359 

CHAP.  V.  — .The  forged  Acts 359 

CHAP.  VI.  —  Those  who  suffered  martyrdom  at  this  time 360 

CHAP.  VII.  — The  decrees  against  us  which  were  engraved  on  pillars 360 

CHAP.  VIII.  —  The  misfortunes  which  happened  in  connection  with  these  things,  in  famine,  pestilence,  and  war  361 

CHAP.  IX.  —  The  victory  of  the  God-beloved  emperors 363 

CHAP.  X.  —  The  overthrow  of  the  tyrants,  and  the  words  which  they  uttered  before  their  death 366 

CHAP.  XI.  —  The  final  destruction  of  the  enemies  of  religion.    ...    367 


CHAP.  I.  —  The  peace  granted  us  by  God 369 

CHAP.  II.  —  The  restoration  of  the  churches 370 

CHAP.  III.  —  The  dedications  in  every  place 371 

CHAP.  IV.  —  Panegyric  on  the  splendor  of  affairs 371 

CHAP.  V.  —  Copies  of  imperial  laws  378 

CHAP.  VI.  — Copy  of  an  imperial  epistle  in  which  money  is  granted  to  the  churches 382 

CHAP.  VII. — The  exemption  of  the  clergy:  Copy  of  an  epistle  in  which  the  emperor  commands  that  the 

rulers  of  the  churches  be  exempted  from  all  political  duties 383 

CHAP.  VIII.  —  The  subsequent  wickedness  of  Licinius,  and  his  death 384 

CHAP.  IX. — The  victory  of  Constantino,  and  the  blessings  which  under  him  accrued  to  the  subjects  of  the 

Roman  empire 386 


BOOK    I. 

The  Plan  of  the   Work. 

as  of  the  times  which  have  elapsed  from  the  da) 
of  our  Saviour  to  our  own ;  and  to  relate  the 
many  important  events  which  are  said  to  have 

CHAPTER    I.  i      But  at  the  outset  I   must  crave  for  my       4 

work  the  indulgence  of  the  wise,4  for  I  con- 
fess that  it  is  beyond  my  power  to  produce  a 

.'perfect    and  complete  history,   and    since   I  am 
IT  is  my  purpose  to  write  an  account  of  ii     /-    , 

4l  f  .,     ,    ,  ,    the  first  to  enter  upon  the  subject,  1  am  attemiit- 

the  successions  of  the  holy  apostles,  as  well    • 

•,!_.•  1-11  t          ff  i  in£  to  traverse  as  it  were  a  lonely  and  untrodden 

the  times  which  have  elansed  from  the  rhvs  1      °t   ,     T 

path."    I  pray  that  I  may  have  God  as  my  guide 

and  the  power  of  the   Lord  as  my  aid,  since   I 
am  unable  to  find  even   the  bare    footsteps   of 

occurred  in  the  history  of  the  Church  ;  and  to 
mention  those  who  have  governed  and  presided 
over  the  Church  in  the  most  prominent  parishes, 
and  those  who  in  each  generation  have  pro- 
claimed the  divine  word  either  orally  or  in 
writing.  It  is  my  purpose  also  to  give  the  names 
and  number  and  times  of  those  who  through 
2  love  of  innovation  have  run  into  the  greatest 

those  who  have  traveled  the  way  before  me-, 
except  in  brief  fragments,  in  which  some  in  one 
way,  others  in  another,  have  transmitted  to  us 
particular  accounts  of  the  times  in  which  they 
lived.  From  afar  they  raise  their  voices  like 
torches,  and  they  cry  out,  as  from  some  lofty 
and  conspicuous  watch-tower,  admonishing  us 
where  to  walk  and  how  to  direct  the  course  of 

errors,  and,  proclaiming  themselves  discov-   '         '  ™  ' 
.rers  of  knowledge  falsely  so-called,'  have  like    our  work  seaddy  and  safely      Having  gath- 

ierce  wolves  unmercifully"  devastated  the  flock   ^  ^T  t?"     T  «*        .        mentl°ned 

here  and  there  b'  them  whatever  - 

fierce  wolves  unmercifully  devastated  the  flock 
of  Christ.  It  is  my  intention,  moreover,  to  re- 
count the  misfortunes  which  immediately  came 

upon  tlu;  whole  Jewish  nation  in  conse- 
3  (mence  of  their  plots  against  our  Saviour, 

and   to  record  the  ways  and  the  times  in 

there  by  them  whatever  we  con- 
sider important  for  the  present  work,  and  having 
plucked  like  flowers  from  a  meadow  the  appro- 
priate passages  from  ancient  writers,"  we  shall 
endeavor  to  embody  the  whole  in  an  historical 
narrative,  content  if  we  preserve  the  memory  of 

.1  by  the  translators  Stigloher  and  Cruse,  read  TON  0,  ou  after  \(i(.<r- 

»>ver,  are  o 

which  the  divine  word  has  been  attacked  by  the 
Gentiles,  and  to  describe  the  chamcter  of  those 
who  at  various  periods  contended  for  it   ja 
the  face  of  blood  and  o;  tortures,  as  wdi  as  the  j  r!',t 
confessions  which  have  been  made  in  our  own  i 
days,  and  finally  the  gracious  and  kindly  succor  j  '• 
which  our  Saviour  has  afforded  them  o'.l. 
I    propose   to  write   of  all   the 
commence  my  work  with    the  of  the 
dispensation"   of   our   Saviour   and   Lord    Jesus i He  ' 

/-ii.    •    .    •!  sive  historic.!    plan  in  view;    an  1  yi-t, 


tied  1 
1    -  Hein 

1  leinichen,  V  ol.  I.  p.  4, 
•'   AH    the    .MSS.    followed    by   th.:    mr 
evyvu>fj.oi'iav,  which    must    agree   with   A<> 
followed    by  Hurton,   Scrr.vegler,  Uoss, 
M-<>K'ji',  which  I  have  also  acceple  ' 
der  Ke>in<-r  ;  Stigloher,  wofihvt'l! 
i.1"'    difficulty  by   omitting   the   wni 

']  irity  of  the  best 
1  Closs.     (See  the 

word  among  ecclesiastical  writers:    (i)   Minist 

orld    to 

last  book  the  account  of  the   martyrdom  of  James  the  Just,  which 
shows  that  his  work  lacked  at  least  all  chronological  arrangemet. 
Julius  Africanus  (see  Bk.  VI.  chap.  31,  note  i)  also  furnished  Ku 
bius  with  much  material  in  the 

e  line  of  chronology,  and  in  his  C 

icle  Eusebius  made   free   use  of  him 

can  in  any  sense  be  said  to  have  preceded  E 

,  and  thus  (lie  first 

„ — —  •  the  incarnation,  as  the  last  oiKovonLa.  is 
tlie  passion."  The  word  in  the  present  case  is  used  in  its  wide 
sense  to  denote  not  simply  the  act  of  incarnation,  but  the  whole 

Heinichen  upon  this  passage,  Vol.    HI.   p.   4  sq.,  and  of  Valesius,     work's  of  many  of" tnem'aVc'|o'st,"i^^ 

.:  !:.P'  ?;,,,,      ,.  i  tne  extracts  made  by  Eusebius.     This  fact  alone  is  enough  to  make 

1'ive  M.Sb.,  iollowed  by  nearly  all  the  editors  of  the  Greek  text  j  his  History  of  inestimable  worth. 

VOL.  I.  G 


One  of  the  greatest  values  of  Eusebius'  History  lies  in  the  quo- 
tations which    it  contains  from  earlier  ecclesiastical   writers.      The 




the  successions  of  the  apostles  of  our  Saviour  ; 
it  not  indeed  of  all,  yet  of  the  most  renowned 
of  them  in  those  churches  which  arc  the  most 
noted,  and  which  even  to  the  present  time  are 
held  in  honor. 

6  This  work  seems  to  me  of  especial   im- 
portance because  I  know  of  no  ecclesiastical 

writer  who  has  devoted  himself  to   this   subject  ; 

and    I    hope   that  it  will  appear  most   useful  to 

those  who   are   fond   of  historical    research. 

7  I    have  already  given  an  epitome  of  these 
things   in  the  Chronological  Canons7  which 

I    have   composed,   but   notwithstanding  that,    1 

have  undertaken  in  the  present  work  to  write  as 

full  an  account  of  them  as  I  am   able.      My 

8  work   will   begin,  as    1    have  said,  with    the 
dispensation  M  of  the  Saviour  Christ,  —  which 

is  loftier  and   greater  than   human   conception, 
—  and  with  a  discussion  of  his  divinity'-'; 

9  tor  it    is   necessary,  inasmuch  as  we  derive 
even  our  name  from    Christ,   for  one  who 

proposes  to  write  a  history  of  the  Church  to  be- 
gin with  the  very  origin  of  Christ's  dispensation. 
a  dispensation  more  divine  than  many  think. 


Snmmarv  Vir^<  <>/  the  Pre-existcnce  and  Dhnn- 
ity  of  Our  Saviour  and  Lord  Jesus  Chris/. 

SINCE  in  Christ  there  is  a  twofold  nature, 

and  the  one  — •  in  so  far  as  he  is  thought  of 

as  Cod  —  resembles  the  head  of  the  body,  while 

the  other  maybe  compared  with  the  feet,  —  in 

so  far  as  he,  for  the  sake  of  our  salvation,  put  on 

human  nature  with  the  same  passions  as  our  own, 

—  the  following  work  will   be  complete  only  if 

we  begin  with  the  chief  and  lordliest  events  of 

all  his  history.     In  this  way  will   the  antiquity 

and  divinity  of  Christianity  be  shown  to  those 

who   suppose   it   of  recent  and   foreign  origin,1 

and  imagine  that  it  appeared  only  yester- 

2       day.2     No  language  is  sufficient  to  express 

^  On  Eusebius1  Chronicle,  see  the  Prolegomena,  p.  31,  aho<-   . 

k  oiKoro/j.ii.      Sue  above,  note  2. 

"  w.uAr,-),'"-  Suicer  gives  four  meanings  for  this  word:  (i)  7Vo 
tri,i<:  '"  />"  (2)  /'.>•/.-/;;  ..'..  ,9C.  .rinitate.  (3)  Jlh'itia 
Chrnti  natura,  s,  ..  uvurina  ,/,-  ea.  (4)  Scrifitura  sacra  titri- 
usijiie  Testamenti.  The  word  is  used  litre  in  its  third  signification 
(cf.  also  chap.  2,  §  3,  and  l',k.  V.  chap.  28,  §5).  It  occurs  very 
frequently  in  the  works  of  the  Fathers  with  this  meaning,  especially 
in  connection  with  o'icoro/ii'i,  which  i>  then  quite  commonly  used  to 
denote  the  "human  nature"  of  Christ.  In  the  present  chapter 
oiKoroMi'a  keeps  throughout  its  more  general  signification  of  "  the 
Dispensation  of  Christ,"  and  is  not  Loniined  to  the  mere  act  of  incar- 
nation, nor  to  his  "  human  nature." 

_  2  This  was  one  of  the  principal  objections  raised  against  Chris- 
tianity. Antiquity  was  considered  a  prime  requisite  in  a  religion 
which  claimed  to  be  true,  and  no  reproach  was  greater  than  the 
h  of  novelty.  Hen.  e  the  apologists  laid  great  stress  upon 


the  antiquity  of  Christianity,  and  this  was  one  reason  why  they 
appropriated  the  Old  Testament  a,  a  Christian  book.  Compare 
for  instance,  the  apologies  of  Justin  Martyr,  Tatian,  Athenagoras, 
Iheophilus,  Tertullian  and  Minuriiis  Felix,  and  the  works  of 
Clement  of  Alexandria.  S.-e  Engelhardt's  article  on  Kusebius,  in 
the  Ztiischri/t  fur  di<-  hist.  Theologic,  1852,  p.  652  sq.;  Schaff's 

the    origin   and    the    worth,    the    being   and    the 
nature    of   Christ.       Wherefore    also    the    divine 
Spirit  says  in  the  prophecies,  "Who  shall  declare 
his  generation  ?  "  ;    For  none  knoweth  the  Father 
except    the   Son,  neither  can   any  one   know  the 
Son   adequately   except    the    Father   alone  who 
hath    begotten    him.4      For  who   beside  the 
Father  could   clearly  understand   the   Light        3 
which  was  before  the  world,  the  intellectual 
and   essential  Wisdom  which  existed  before  the 
ages,  the  living  Word  which  was   in   the   begin- 
ning with  the    Father  and  which   was   Cod,  the 
first  and  only  begotten  of  Cod  which  was  before 
every  creature  and  creation  visible  and  invisible, 
the  commander-in-chief  of  the  rational  and   im- 
mortal   host   of   heaven,   the    messenger   of   the 
great  counsel,  the  executor  of  the    Father's  un- 
spoken will,  the  creator,  with   the   Father,  of  all 
things,  the  second  cause  of  the  universe  after 
the    Father,  the  true  and  only-begotten   Son  of 
God,  the  Lord  and  God  and  King  of  all  created 
things,  the  one  who  has  received  dominion  and 
power,  with  divinity  itself,  and  with   might  and 
honor  from  the    Father;  as  it  is  said  in  regard 
to   him   in   the   mystical    passages   of   Scripture 
which  speak  of  his  divinity  :  "  In  the  beginning 
was  the  Word,  and  the  Word  was  with  God,  and 
the  Word  was  God."5     "All  things  were  made 
by  him  ;  and  without  him  was  not  anything 
made.'"'  This,  too,  the  great  Moses  teaches,       4 
when,  as  the  most  ancient  of  all  the  proph- 
ets,  he   describes   under  the    influence    of   the 
divine  Spirit  the  creation  and  arrangement  of  the 
universe.      lie  declares  that  the  maker  of  the 
world  and   the  creator  of  all  things  yielded  to 
Christ  himself,  and  to  none  other  than  his  own 
clearly  divine  and  first-born  Word,  the  making  of 
inferior  things,  and  communed  with  him  respect- 
ing the  creation  of  man.     "  For,"  says  he,  "  God 
said,  Let  us  make  man  in  our  image  and  in 
our  likeness."7  And  another  of  the  prophets       5 
confirms  this,  speaking  of  God  in  his  hymns 
as  follows  :  "  He  spake  and  they  were  made  ;  he 
commanded  and  they  were  created."8     He  here 
introduces  the   Father  and   A  Faker  as  Ruler  of 
all,  commanding  with  a  kingly  nod,  and  second 
to  him  the  divine  Word,  none   other  than  the 
one  who  is  proclaimed    by  us,  as  carrying  out 

Church  History,  Vol.  II.  p.  no;  and  Tzschirner's  Geschichte  dtr 
Apologetik,  p.  99  sq. 

11  Isa.  liii.  8.  e  John  i.  3. 

|  Cf.  Matt.  xi.  27.  7  Gen.  i.  26. 

r'  John  i.  i. 

8  Ps.  xxxiii.  9.  There  is  really  nothing  in  this  passage  to  imply 
that  the  Psalmist  thinks,  as  Eusebius  supposes,  of  the  Son  as  the 
Father's  agent  in  creation,  who  is  here  addressed  by  the  Father. 
As  Stroth  remarks,  "  According  to  Eusebius,  '  He  spake'  is  equiva- 
lent to  'He  said  to  the  Son,  Create':  and  '  They  were  created' 
means,  according  to  him,  not  '  They  arose  immediately  upon  this 
command  of  Cod,"  but  'The  Son  was  immediately  obedient  to  the 
command  of  the  Father  and  produced  them.'  For  Eusebius  con- 
nects this  verse  with  the  sixth,  '  Ky  the  word  of  the  Lord  were  the 
heavens  made,'  where  he  understands  Christ  to  be  referred  to. 
Perhaps  this  verse  has  been  omitted  in  the  Greek  through  an  over- 
sight, for  it  is  found  in  Rufinus." 

I.  2.] 


6  the  Father's  commands.       All  that  are  said 
to  have  excelled  in  righteousness  and  piety 

since  the  creation  of  man,  the  great  servant  Mo- 
ses and  before  him  in  the  first  place  Abraham 
and  his  children,  and  as  many  righteous  men  and 
prophets  as  afterward  appeared,  have  contem- 
plated him  with  the  pure  eyes  of  the  mind,  and 
have  recognized  him  and  offered  to  him  the 
worship  which  is  due  him  as  Son  of  God. 

7  But  he,  by  no  means  neglectful  (/f  the  rev- 
erence due  to  the  Father,  was  appointed  to 

teach  the  knowledge  of  the  Father  to  them  all. 
For  instance,  the  Lord  God,  it  is  said,  appeared 
as  a  common  man  to  Abraham  while  he  was  sit- 
ting at  the  oak  of  Mambre.y  And  he,  immediately 
falling  down,  although  he  saw  a  man  with  his 
eyes,  nevertheless  worshiped  him  as  God,  and 
sacrificed  to  him  as  Lord,  and  confessed  that  he 
was  not  ignorant  of  his  identity  when  he  uttered 
the  words,  "  Lord,  the  judge  of  all  the  earth,  wilt 
thou  not  execute  righteous  judgment?"1" 

8  For  if  it  is  unreasonable  to  suppose  that  the 
unbegotten  and  immutable  essence  of  the 

almighty  God  was  changed  into  the  form  of  man, 
or  that  it  deceived  the  eyes  of  the  beholders 
with  the  appearance  of  some  created  thing,  and 
if  it  is  unreasonable  to  suppose,  on  the  other 
hand,  that  the  Scripture  should  falsely  invent  such 
things,  when  the  God  and  Lord  who  judgeth  all 
the  earth  and  executeth  judgment  is  seen  in  the 
form  of  a  man,  who  else  can  be  called,  if  it  be 
not  lawful  to  call  him  the  first  cause  of  all  things, 
than  his  only  pre-existent  Word?11  Concern- 
ing whom  it  is  said  in  the  Psalms,  "  He  sent  his 
Word  and  healed  them,  and  delivered  them 

9  from    their    destructions."  V2      Moses    most 
clearly  proclaims  him  second  Lord  after  the 

Father,  when  he  says,  "The  Lord  rained  upon 
Sodom  and  Gomorrah  brimstone  and  fire  from 
the  Lord."1  The  divine  Scripture  also  calls  him 
God,  when  he  appeared  again  to  Jacob  in  the 
form  of  a  man,  and  said  to  Jacob,  "Thy  name 
shall  be  called  no  more  Jacob,  but  Israel  shall 
be  thy  name,  because  thou  hast  prevailed  with 
God."  w  Wherefore  also  Jacob  called  the  name 
of  that  place  "Vision  of  God,"1'"  saying,  "For  I 
have  seen  God  face  to  face,  and  my  life  is 

10  preserved."  li:     Nor  is  it  admissible  to  sup- 
pose   that   the   theophanies  recorded  W«_TC 

.  .  .       _ 

11  Ei^ebuis  '<  -cpts  tlic  common  view  of  the  early  Church,  that 
the  theophanies  of  the  Old  Testament  were  Christophanies;  that  is, 
appearances  of  the  second  person  of  tin-  Trinity.  Augustine  .seems 
to  have  been  the  first  of  the  Fathers  to  take  :i  different  \iew,  main- 
taining that  such  Christophanies  were  not  consistent  with  the  iden- 
tity of  essence  between  Father  and  Son,  and  that  the  Scriptures 
'hemselve.s  teach  that  it  was  not  the  Logos,  hut  in  angel  tint  ap- 
peared t.i  '.he  Old  Testament  worthies  on  various  onn>:ir.n<  ''-f.  TV 
Tri'/i.  III.  n).  Augustine's  opinion  was  widely  -id.  ;],teil,  but  in 
modern  times  the  earlier  view,  which  K.usebiiis  represents,  I). is  been 
the  prevailing  one  (see  Hodge,  Systematic  'l'lien!,\y,  I.  p.  490,  and 
Lange's  article  Theofihany  in  Herzog). 

Ps.  cvii.  20. 
1:1  Gen.  xix.  24. 
14  Gen.  xxxii.  28. 

10  Gen.  xxxii.  30. 

appearances  of  subordinate  angels  and  ministers 
of  God.  for  whenever  any  of  these  appeared 
to  men,  the  Scripture  does  not  conceal  the 
fact,  but  calls  them  bv  name  not  God  nor  Lord, 
but  angels,  as  it  is  easy  to  prove  by  num- 
berless testimonies.  Joshua,  also,  the  sue-  11 
cessor  of  Moses,  calls  him,  as  leader  of 
the  heavenly  angels  and  archangels  and  of  the 
supramundane  powers,  and  as  lieutenant  of 
the  Father,1'  entrusted  with  the  second  rank  of 
sovereignty  and  rule  over  all,  "captain  of  the 
host  of  the  Lord,"  although  he  saw  him  not 
otherwise  than  again  in  the  form  and  appear- 
ance of  a  man.  For  it  is  written  :  "And  it 
came  to  pass  when  Joshua  was  at  Jericho1"  12 
that  he  looked  and  saw  a  man  standing 
over  against  him  with  his  sword  drawn  in  his 
hand,  and  Joshua  went  unto  him  and  said,  Art 
thou  for  us  or  for  our  adversaries?  And  he  said 
unto  him,  As  captain  of  the  host  of  the  Lord  am 
I  now  come.  And  Joshua  fell  on  his  face  to  the 
earth  and  said  unto  him,  Lord,  what  dost  thou 
command  thy  servant?  and  the  captain  of  the 
Lord  said  unto  Joshua,  Loose  thy  shoe  from  off 
thy  feet,  for  the  place  whereon  thou  standest 
is  holy."  1!)  You  will  perceive  also  from  the  13 
same  words  that  this  was  no  other  than  he 
who  talked  with  Moses.""  For  the  Scripture 
says  in  the  same  words  and  with  reference  to 
the  same  one,  "When  the  Lord  saw  that  he 
drew  near  to  see,  the  Lord  called  to  him  out  of 
the  bush  and  said,  Moses,  Moses.  And  he  said, 
What  is  it?  And  he  said,  Draw  not  nigh  hither; 
loose  thy  shoe  from  off  thy  feet,  for  the  place 
whereon  thou  standest  is  holy  ground.  And  he 
said  unto  him,  I  am  the  God  of  thy  fathers,  the 
God  of  Abraham,  and  the  God  of  Isaac,  and 
the  God  of  Jacob."-' 

And  that  there  is  a  certain  substance  14 
which  lived  and  subsisted"  before  the  world, 
and  which  ministered  unto  the  Father  and  God 
of  the  universe  for  the  formation  of  all  created 
tilings,  and  which  is  called  the  Word  of  God 
and  Wisdom,  we  may  learn,  to  ^"ote  other 
proofs  in  addition  to  those  already  cited.  fu/;n 
the  mouth  of  Wisdom  herself,  who  reveals  nu.s; 
clearly  through  Solomon  the  following  mysteries 
concerning  herself:  "  I,  Wisdom,  have  dwelt 

17  The    MSS.  tlihx.-    -'really  nt    this   point.     A    n 
by  Valesius,  « 

of  them. 

nioweu    oy   \  .tiesius,  L>ios..,     "  u.^e,     ie.iu,    101 

virapXovTii.    ^livt/u.'     Kai    o-u./uu  Siiiweglcr,    T.aemmer,    Hurio1 

and  Heinichen  adopt  another  reading  \vhi>  n  }..,.-•  *C?"?  Ar ""  r'.'f.,.,,. 
and  which  we  have  followed  in  i-nr  Iran  iation:  oxr-u  M  run  WCIT/M 
virap^or.  See  Heinichen's.  edition,  Y,,l  I.  p.  10,  n  :t<_  4: 

"Josh.  V.  13-15. 

20  Eusebius  agrees  with  other  earlier  Fathers  ^e.g.  Justin  M.irt\ 
Origcn,  and  Cyprian)  in  identifying  the  one  that  appeared  to  Jo-l 
with  him  that  had  appeared   t  .   Mov-,  on   the   group  I  that  the  - 
words    were    used    in    both    cases      .  f .    >,pc<.iai!\     lupin's    /Y.r 
Try f>h»,  chap.  >  j\      Many  1  Her  rather-'   'e.g.  T!  • 

person  that   appeared    to    Joshua   as    ii,c  ..rc'ii 

described   by  Daniel  (x.    2~t    and  xii.    i)  as  fighting  for  the  people  i 

God.      See  Keil's  Commentary  on  7»s/itn>,  chap.  5,  vv.  i  ;-.^. 

21  Ex.  iii.  4-6.     Cf.  Justin's  /  W.,  chap.  63. 

G   2 



with  prudence  and   knowledge,  ;md    I    have  in- 
voked understanding.    Through  me  kings  reign, 
and  princes  ordain  righteousness.     Through  me 
the  great   are    magnified,  and   through   me 

15  sovereigns  rule  the  earth."-"     To  which  she 
adds  :  "The  Lord  created  me  in  the  begin- 
ning   of   his    ways,    for    his    works  ;    before    the 
world   he  established   me,  in   the   beginning,  be- 
fore   he   made    the   earth,   before    he    made    the 
depths,  before  the  mountains  were  settled,  before- 
all   hills    he    begat   me.     When   he  prepared   the 
heavens    I  was  present  with   him.  and  when   he 
established  the  fountains    of  the    region   under 
heaven21  I  was  with  him.  disposing.     I  was  the 
one  in  whom  he  delighted  ;  daily  1  rejoiced  lie- 
fore  him  at  all  times  when  he  was  rejoicin^ 

16  at   having    completed    the  world.""'    Thai 
the    divine    Word,    therefore,    pre-existed 

and   appeared  to  some,  if  not  to  all,  has  thu 
been  briefly  shown  by  us. 

17  But  why  the  Gospel  was    not   preached 
in    ancient    times    to    all    men    and    to   all 

nations,  as  it  is  now,  will  appear  from  the  follow- 
ing  considerations.-0     The  life   of  the    ancient., 
was  not  of  such  a   kind  as  to  permit  them   to 
receive  the  all-wise  and  all-virtuous  teaching 

18  of  Christ.      For  immediately  in  the  begin- 
ning, after  his  original  life  'of  blessedness, 

the  first  man  despised  the  command  of  God, 
and  fell  into  this  mortal  and  perishable  state, 
and  exchanged  his  former  divinely  inspired 
luxury  for  this  curse-laden  earth.  His  descend- 
ants having  filled  our  earth,  showed  themselves 
much  worse,  with  the  exception  of  one  here  and 
there,  and  entered  upon  a  certain  brutal  and 
insupportable  mode  of  life.  They  thought 

19  neither  of  city  nor  state,  neither  of  arts  nor 
sciences.    They  were  ignorant  even  of  the 

name  of  laws  and  of  justice,  of  virtue  and  of 
philosophy.  As  nomads,  they  passed  their  lives 
in  deserts,  like  wild  and  fierce  beasts,  destroy- 
ing, by  an  excess  of  voluntary  wickedness,  the 
natural  reason  of  man,  and  the  seeds  of  thought 
and  of  culture  implanted  in  the  human  soul. 
They  gave  themselves  wholly  over  to  all  kinds 
of  profanity,  now  seducing  one  another,  now 
slaying  one  another,  now  eating  human  flesh, 
and  now  daring  to  wage  war  with  the  Gods  and 
to  undertake  those  battles  of  the  gii'Ylo  cele- 
brated by  all  ;  now  planning  tr,  fortify  earth 
against  heaven,  and  in  Vhe  madness  of  un- 

,  Stiglohcr,  :iml  Cruse  translate  in  the  same 

h  the  same  line  of  argument  in  his  Don. 

2-'  Prov.  \ 

'-'••  Kusebii 

r-  1}  •   ...      ,.,..  ;  ' •"  '•••*-  ^'  "i  i^iiiii^ni.  in  m>,  ui'ui. 

twang..  Proem.  |{k.  \  III.:  and  compare  also  Gregory  of  Nvss-i's 
Third  Oration  on  the  binh  of  the  Lord  (at  the  beginning).  The 
objection  which  Eusebius  undertakes  to  answer  here  was  an  old 
one,  and  had  been  considered  by  Justin  Martyr,  by  Origen  in  his 
work  against  Cclsus,  and  by  others  (see  Tzschirner's  C.tscliicht,- 
<ler  Apologetik,  p.  25  ff.). 

governed  pride  to  prepare  an  attack  upon  the 
very  God  of  all.'-*7 

( )n  account  of  these  things,  when  they     20 
conducted   themselves    thus,   the  all-seeing 
God  sent  down  upon  them  floods  and  conflagra- 
tions  as   upon   a  wild    forest    spread    over    the 
whole   earth.      He  cut  them   down  with  contin- 
uous famines  and  plagues,  with  wars,  and  with 
thunderbolts  from   heaven,  as  if  to  check  some 
terrible  and   obstinate  disease  of  souls  with 
more  severe  punishments.     Then,  when  the     21 
excess    of    wickedness     had     overwhelmed 
nearly  all  the  race,  like  a  deep  fit  of  drunkenness, 
beclouding  and   darkening    the   minds  of  men, 
the  first-born  and  first-created  wisdom  of  God, 
the  pre-existent  Word  himself,    induced  by  his 
exceeding  love    for    man,  appeared    to  his  ser- 
vants, now  in  the  form  of  angels,  and  again  to 
one  and  another  of  those  ancients  who  enjoyed 
the  favor  of  God,  in  his  own  person  as  the  sav- 
ing ] lower  of  God,  not  otherwise,  however,  than 
in  the    shape  of  man,   because   it  was   im- 
possible to  appear  in  any  other  way.     And      22 
as   by  them   the  seeds  of  piety  were  sown 
among  a  multitude  of  men  and  the  whole  nation, 
descended    from    the    Hebrews,  devoted   them- 
selves  persistently  to    the   worship   of  God,   he 
imparted   to  them  through  the  prophet  Moses, 
as  to  multitudes  still  corrupted  by  their  ancient 
practices,  images  and  symbols  of  a  certain  mys- 
tic Sabbath  and  of  circumcision,  and  elements 
of  other    spiritual    principles,   but    he    did    not 
grant  them   a  complete  knowledge  of  the 
mysteries  themselves.     But  when  "their  law     23 
became  celebrated,  and,  like  a  sweet  odor, 
was  diffused  among  all  men,  as  a  result  of  their 
influence  the  dispositions  of  the  majority  of  the 
heathen  were  softened  by  the  lawgivers  and  phi- 
losophers who  arose   on   every  side,   and   their 
wild  and  savage  brutality  was  changed  into  mild- 
ness, so  that  they  enjoyed  deep  peace,  friend- 
ship, and  social  intercourse.-8     Then,  finally,  at 
the  time  of  the  origin  of  the  Roman  Empire,  there 
appeared  again  to  all  men  and  nations  through- 
out the  world,  who  had  been,  as  it  were,  pre- 
viously assisted,  and  were  now  fitted  to  receive 
the  knowledge  of  the  Father,  that  same  teacher 

-"  1  he  re'ic'^nce  here  seems  to  be  to  the  building  of  the  tower 
of  P>abel  (Gen.  xi.  -~'}1'  although  Valesius  thinks  otherwise.  The 
fact  that  Eusebius  refers  '0  '-it  'oTuue^  <>f  the  giants,  which  were 
celebrated  in  heathen  song,  does  not  militate  a^':nst  a  reference  in 
this  passage  to  the  narrative  recounted  in  Genesis.  He  illustrates 
the  presumption  of  the  human  race  by  instances  familiar  to  his 
readers  whether  drawn  from  Christian  or  from  Pagan  sources. 
Compare  the  Prifp.  Evattg.  ix.  14. 

JS  It  was  the  opinion  of  Eusebius,  in  common  with  most  of  the 
Fathers,  that  the  Greek  philosophers,  lawgivers,  and  poets  had  ob- 
tained their  wisdom  from  the  ancient  Hebrews,  and  this  point  was 
pressed  very  strongly  by  many  of  the  apologists  in  their  effort  to 
prove  the  antiquity  of  Christianity.  The  assertion  was  made  espe- 
cially in  the  case  of  Plato  and  Pythagoras,  who  were  said  to  have 
become  acquainted  with  the  books  of  the  Hebrews  upon  their  journey 
to  Egypt.  Compare  among  other  passages  Justin's  Apol.  I.  59  ff. ; 
Clement  of  Alexandria's  Cohort,  ad  Getitt-s,  chap.  6;  and  Tertulh- 
an's  Apol.  chap.  47.  Compare  also  Eusebius'  Prtep.  £i'a>ii'.,  Bks. 
IX. and  X. 

I-  J.J 


of  virtue,  the  minister  of  the  Father  in  all  goo 
tilings,  the  divine  and  heavenly  Word  of  (loci,  in  . 
human  body  not  at  all  differing  in  substance  fron 
our  own.  He  did  and  suffered  the  tilings  whici 
had  been  prophesied.  For  it  had  been  foretoh 
that  one  who  was  at  the  same  time  man  and  Got 
should  come  and  dwell  in  the  world,  should  per 
form  wonderful  works,  and  should  show  himself  ; 
teacher  to  all  nations  of  the  piety  of  the  Father 
The  marvelous  nature  of  his  birth,  ami  his  nev 
teaching,  and  his  wonderful  works  had  alsc 
been  foretold  ;  so  likewise  the  manner  of  hi 
death,  his  resurrection  from  the  dead,  and 
finally,  his  divine  ascension  into  heaven. 

24  For  instance,  Daniel  the  prophet,  under  the 
influence   of  the   divine   Spirit,  seeing    hi 

kingdom  at  the  end  of  time,'''"  was  inspired  thu 
to  describe  the  divine  vision  in  language  fittei. 
to  human  comprehension  :  "  For  I  beheld,"  he 
says,  "until  thrones  were  placed,  and  the  Ancien 
of  Days  did  sit,  whose  garment  was  white  a: 
snow  and  the  hair  of  his  head  like  pure  wool 
his  throne  was  a  flame  of  fire  and  his  wheel: 
burning  fire.  A  river  of  fire  flowed  before  him 
Thousand  thousands  ministered  unto  him,  anc 
ten  thousand  times  ten  thousand  stood  before 
him.  He  appointed  judgment,  and  the 

25  books    were    opened."3"      And    again,    "I 
saw,"  says   he,  "  and  behold,  one  like   the 

Son  of  man  came  with  the  clouds  of  heaven, 
and  he  hastened  unto  the  Ancient  of  Days  and 
was  brought  into  his  presence,  and  there  was 
given  him  the  dominion  and  the  glory  and  the 
kingdom  ;  and  all  peoples,  tribes,  and  tongues 
serve  him.  His  dominion  is  an  everlasting  do- 
minion which  shall  not  pass  away,  and  his 

26  kingdom  shall  not  be  destroyed." ;il     It  is 
clear  that  these  words  can  refer  to  no  one 

else   than  to  our  Saviour,  the   Cod  Word  who 

was   in  the  beginning  with  God,  and  \vho  was 

called  the  Son  of  man  because  of  his  final 

27  appearance  in  the  flesh.     Hut  since  we  have 
collected  in  separate  books :!-  the  selections 

from  the  prophets  which  relate  to  our  Saviour 
Jesus  Christ,  and  have  arranged  in  a  more  logi- 
cal form  those  things  which  have  been  revealed 
concerning  him,  what  has  been  said  will  suffice  for 
the  present. 


The  Name  Jesus  and  a /so  (he  Name  Christ  were 
knonniffoin  the  J-iegi  lining,  and  were  honored 
l>y  the  Inspired  Prophets. 

IT  is  now  the  proper  place  to  show  that 
the  very   name     Jesus  and   also  the  name 

u'  Thc,  (lre.ek  has  only  cVl  TI;A">  which  c:l"  refcr.  however,  only 
to  the  end  of  time  or  to  the  end  of  the  worlil. 

'">  Dan.  vii.  9,  10.                              m  Dan.  vii.  13,  14. 
••'-'  Eusebius  refers  '  

Christ  were  honored  by  the  ancient  proph- 
ets beloved  of  God.1      Moses  was  the   first        2 
to  make  known  the   name    of   Christ  as  a 
name  especially  august  and  glorious.     When  he 
delivered  types  and  symbols  of  heavenly  things, 
and   mysterious   images,  in  accordance  with  the 
oracle  which  said  to  him,  "  Look  that  thou  make- 
all  things  according  to   the    pattern   which  was 
shown  thee   in   the   mount,"- he   consecrated   a 
man  high  priest  of  God,  in  so  far  as  that  was 
possible,  and   him   he  called  Christ:"'     And  thus 
to  this  dignity  of  the   high   priesthood,  which  in 
his  opinion  surpassed  the  most   honorable   posi- 
tion among  men,  he  attached  for  the  sake  of 
honor  and  glory  the  name  of  Christ.      He       3 
knew  so  well  that  in  Christ  was   something 
divine.    And  the  same  one  foreseeing,  under  the 
influence  of  the  divine  Spirit,  the  nanie  Jesus,  dig- 
nified it  also  with  a  certain  distinguished  privi- 
lege.    For  the  name  of  Jesus,  which  had  never 
been  uttered   among   men   before   the    time   of 
Moses,  he  applied  first  and  only  to  the  one  who 
he  knew  would  receive  after  his  death,  again  as 
a  type  and  symbol,  the  supreme  command. 
His  successor,  therefore,  who  had  not  hith-       4 
erto  borne  the  name  Jesus,  but  had  been 
called  by  another  name,  Auses,4  which  had  been 
given  him  by  his  parents,  he  now  called  Jesus, 
bestowing  the  name  upon  him  as  a  gift  of  honor, 
fir  greater  than  any  kingly  diadem.      For  Jesus 
himself,  the    son  of  Nave,  bore  a  resemblance 
to  our  Saviour  in  the  fact  that  he  alone,  after 
Moses  and  after  the  completion  of  the  symboli- 
cal worship  which  had  been  transmitted  by  him, 
succeeded  to  the  government   of  the   true 
ind  pure  religion.     Thus  Moses  bestowed       5 
the    name    of  our     Saviour,    Jesus     Christ, 
is  a  mark  of  the  highest  honor,  upon  the  two 
nen  who  in  his  time  surpassed  all  the  rest  of 
the  people  _  in  virtue  and  glory;    namely,  upon 
the  high  priest  and  upon  his  own  successor 
n  the  government.     And  the  prophets  that       6 
•ame  after  also  clearly   foretold   Christ  by 
lame,    predicting   at   the    same   time    the    plots 
vhich    the    Jewish    people   would    form   against 
lim,  and  the  calling  of  the  nations  through  him. 
Teremiah,  for  instance,  speaks  as  follows  :   "  The 

1  Compare  the  Don.  Jtvuiig.  iv.  17. 

2  Ex.  xxv.  40. 

'  "  Eusebius  here  has  in  mind  the  passages  Lev    iv.  5    16    and  vi 
2,   where  the   LXX.  reads    „    ,«p,«o    Ap,aT0?:      The  friest,  the 
•"  (Gloss).     The  Authorized  Version  reads,  The  priest 
latmas  aiiniiited ;  the  Revised  Version,   The  anointed />ri,st. 
4  A   few  MSS.,  followed  by  Laemmer    and  Heinichen,  read  here 
'/.but    the   best    MSS.  follow^/l    }^\r  tt-i..    ,i,i^,^;«  ,  ,^f  . ,.i;»~.       1 

Sa  vation."  and  which  Joshua  bore  before  his  name  was  changed, 
y  the  addition  of  a  syllable,  to  Jehoshna-  Joshua-  Jesus,  meaning 

Gods  salvation"  (Num.  xiii.  16).  Jerome  (de  fir.  ill.  C.I.) 
peaks  of  this  corruption  as  existing  in  Greek  and  Latin  MSS.  of  the 
cnptures,  and  as  having  no  sense,  and  contends  that  Osec  is  the 
roper  form,  ( >see  meaning  "  Salvator."  The  same  corruption 
Anses)  occurs  also  in  Tertnllian,  A<h'.  Mure,  iii.  16,  and  Adf. 
fud.  y  (where  the  English  translator,  as  Cruse  also  does 'in  the  pies- 
it  passage,  in  both  cases  departs  from  the  original,  and  renders 
Oshea,'  Ante-Nicene  Fathers,  Am.  Ed.  III.  p.  334,  335,  and 
63),  and  in  Lactantius,  fnstit-it,-s,  iv.  17. 



spirit In-fore  our  face,  Christ  the  Lord,  was  taken 
in  their  destructions  ;  of  whom  we  said,  under  his 
shadow  we  shall  live  among  the  nations."''  And 
David,  in  perplexity,  says,  "  Whydid  the  nations 
rage  and  the  people  imagine  vain  things?  The 
kings  of  the  earth  set  themselves  in  array,  and 
the  rulers  were  gathered  together  against  the 

in  the  person  of  Christ  himself.  "The  Lord  said 
unto  mi-,  Thou  art  my  Son,  (his  day  have  1  be- 
gotten thee.  Ask  of  me,  and  1  will  give  thee  the 
nations  lor  thine  inheritance,  and  the  uttermost 

parts  of  the  earth  for  thy  possession."7 

7  And  not  only  those  who  were  honored  with 

the  high    priesthood,  and  who  for  the  sake 

of    the    symbol   were    anointed    with    especially 

prepared   oil,   were    adorned   with   the   name   of 

Christ  among  the   Hebrews,  but  also  the  kings 

whom  the  prophets  anointed  under  the  influence 

of  the  divine  Spirit,  and  thus  constituted,  as  it 

were,  typical  Christs.     For  they  also  bore  in  their 

own  persons  types   of  the   royal   and  sovereign 

power   of   the    true    and    only    Christ,    the 

divine  Word  who  ruleth  over  all.     And  we 

have  been    told    also    that    certain    of   the 

prophets    themselves    became,    by    the    act    of 

anointing.  Christs  in  type,  so  that 'all  these  have 

reference  to  the  true  Christ,  the  divinely  inspired 

and  heavenly  Word,  who  is  the  only  high  priest 

of  all,  and  the  only  King  of  every  creature,  and 

the  Father's  only  supreme  prophet  of  proph- 

9  els.      And  a  proof  of  this  is  that  no  one  of 
those  who  were  of  old  symbolically  anointed, 

whether  priests,  or  kings,  or  prophets,  possessed 
so  great  a  power  of  inspired  virtue  as  was  ex- 
hibited by  our  Saviour  and   Lord    [esus,  the 

10  true    and    only  Christ.      None  of"  them    at 
least,  however  superior  in  dignity  and  honoi 

they  may  have  been  for  many  generations  among 
their  own  people,  ever  gave  to  their  follower, 
the  name  of  Christians  from  their  own  typical 
name  of  Christ.  Neither  was  divine  honor  ever 
rendered  to  any  one  of  them  by  their  subjects; 
nor  after  their  death  was  the  disposition  of  their 
followers  such  that  they  were  ready  to  die  for 
the  one  whom  they  honored.  And  never  did  so 
great  a  commotion  arise  among  all  the  nations 
of  the  earth  in  respect  to  any  one  of  that  age  ; 
for  the  mere  symbol  could  not  act  with  such 
power  among  them  as  the  truth  itself  which 

11  was  exhibited  by  our  Saviour.    !  le,  although 
he  received   no  symbols  and  types  of  high 

priesthood  from  any  one,  although  he  was  not 
born  of  a  race  of  priests,  although  he  was  not 
elevated  to  a  kingdom  by  military  guards, 
although  he  was  not  a  prophet  like  those  of  old^ 
although  he  obtained  no  honor  nor  pre-eminence 
among  the  Jews,  nevertheless  was  adorned  by 
the  Father  with  all,Jf  not  with  the  symbols, 

'  Sum.  iv.  20. 

IJs.  ii.  i.  2. 

'  Ps.  ii.  7,  8. 

yet  with    the    truth    itself.     And  therefore,      12 
although  he  did  not  possess  like  honors  with 

j   whom   we   have   mentioned,   he    is    called  more  than  all  of  them.     And  as  himself 
the   true  and   only  Christ  of  Cod,  he  has  filled 
the  whole  earth  with  the  truly  august  and  sacred 
name  of   Christians,  committing  to  his  followers 
no  longer  types  and   images,  but  the   uncovered 
virtues  themselves,  and  a  heavenly  life    in 
the  very  doctrines  of  truth.    And  he  was  not      13 
anointed  with    oil    prepared    from    material 
substances,  but,  as  befits  divinity,  with  the  divine 
Spirit  himself,  by  participation  in  the  unbegotten 
(lt-'ity   of   the    Father.      And    this    is  taught  also 
again  by  Isaiah,  who  exclaims,  as  if  in  the  person 
of  Christ  himself,  "The  Spirit    of   the  Lord  is 
upon  me  ;   therefore  hath  he  anointed  me.      He 
hath  sent  me  to  preach  the  Cospel  to  the  poor, 
to  proclaim  deliverance  to  captives,  and  re- 
covery of  sight  to  the  blind.'"     And  not  only      14 
Isaiah,  but  also  David  addresses   him,  say- 
ing, "Thy  throne,  ()  Cod,  is   forever  and   ever. 
A  scepter  of  equity  is  the  scepter  of  thy  king- 
dom.    Thou  hast  loved  righteousness  and  hast 
hated  iniquity.     Therefore  Cod,  thy  Cod,  hath 
anointed  thee  with  the  oil  of  gladness  above  thy 
fellows."8     Here  the  Scripture  calls  him  Cod  in 
the  first  verse,  in  the  second  it  honors  him 
with  a  royal  scepter.     Then  a  little  farther     15 
on,  after  the  divine  and  royal  power,  it  rep- 
resents him  in  the  third  place  as  having  become 
Christ,   being    anointed    not   with   oil    made   of 
material  substances,  but  with  the  divine  oil  of 
gladness.     It  thus  indicates  his  especial  honor, 
far  superior  to  and  different  from   that  of  those 
who,  as   types,  were  of  old  anointed  in  a 
more    material    way.      And    elsewhere    the      16 
same  writer  speaks  of  him  as  follows  :  "The 
Lord  said   unto  my  Lord,  Sit  thou   at  my  right 
hand    until    I    make    thine    enemies    thy    foot- 
stool";1" and,  "(Jut  of  the  womb,   before  the 
morning  star,  have  I  begotten  thee.     The  Lord 
hath  sworn  and  he  will  not  repent.     Thou  art  a 
priest  forever  after  the  order  of  Melchi/,e- 

l!ut  this  Melchi/edec  is  introduced  17 
in  the  Holy  Scriptures  as  a  priest  of  the 
most  high  Cod,1-  not  consecrated  by  any  anoint- 
ing oil,  especially  prepared,  and  not  even  be- 
longing by  descent  to  the  priesthood  of  the 
ews.  Wherefore  after  his  order,  but  not  after 
the  order  of  the  others,  who  received  symbols 
and  types,  was  our  Saviour  proclaimed,  with 
an  appeal  to  an  oath,  Christ  and  priest. 
History,  therefore,  does  not  relate  that  he  10 
was  anointed  corporeally  by  the  Jews,  nor 

I XI.  Ixi.  i.      K,,selm,s  as  usual  follows  the  LXX..  which   in  this 
"  ">""jwn:'  '    'he   Hebrew,  and  hence   the   translation 

s  from  the  English  version.  The  LXX.,  however,  contains  an 
)l.l.p;"^nwte4  ••"•sell'l's  omits.  See  Heinichen's  edition, 
"  ''s-  x'v.  6,  7.  i"  Ps.  ex.  i.  n  ps  cx  . 

l-  See  Gen.  xiv.  18;   Heb.  v.  6,  10;   vi.  20;  viii. 



that  he  belonged  to  the  lineage  of  priests,  but 
that  he  came  into  existence  from  (iod  himself 
before  the  morning  star,  that  is  before  the  or- 
ganization of  the  world,  and  that  he  obtained 
an  immortal  and  undecaying  priesthood  for 

19  eternal  ages.      But  it  is  a  great  and  con- 
vincing proof  of  his  incorporeal  and  divine 

unction  that  he  alone  of  all  those  who  have  ever 
existed  is  even  to  the  present  day  called  Christ 
by  all  men  throughout  the  world,  and  is  con- 
fessed and  witnessed  to  under  this  name,  and  is 
commemorated  both  by  Creeks  and  .Barbarians, 
and  even  to  this  day  is  honored  as  a  King  by 
his  followers  throughout  the  world,  and  is  ad- 
mired as  more  than  a  prophet,  and  is  glorified 
as  the  true  and  only  high  priest  of  Cod.l:i  And 
besides  all  this,  as  the  pre-existent  Word  of  Cod, 
called  into  being  before  all  ages,  he  has  received 
august  honor  from  the  Father,  and  is  wor- 

20  shiped  as  (iod.     But  most  wonderful  of  all 
is  the   fact  that  we  who  have  consecrated 

ourselves  to  him,  honor  him  not  only  with  our 
voices  and  with  the  sound  of  words,  but  also 
with  complete  elevation  of  soul,  so  that  we 
choose  to  give  testimony  unto  him  rather  than 
to  preserve  our  own  lives. 

21  1  have  of  necessity  prefaced  my  history 
with  these  matters  in    order  that    no  one, 

judging  from  the  date  of  his  incarnation,  may 
think  that  our  Saviour  and  Lord  Jesus,  the  Christ, 
has  but  recently  come  into  being. 


77/6-  Religion  proclaimed  l>\  him  to  All  Nati<>ns 
was  neither  Nt"~iU  nor  Strange. 

1  Bur  that   no  one   may  suppose  that  his 
doctrine   is  new  and  strange,  as  if  it  were 

framed  by  a  man  of  recent  origin,  differing   in 
no  respect  from  other  men,  let  us  now  briefly 

2  consider  this  point  also.    It  is  admitted  that 
when  in  recent  times  the  appearance  of  our 

Saviour  Jesus  Christ  had  become  known  to  all 
men  there  immediately  made  its  appearance  a 
new  nation  ;  a  nation  confessedly  not  small,  and 
not  dwelling  in  some  corner  of  the  earth,  but 
the  most  numerous  and  pious  of  all  nations,1  in- 
destructible and  unconquerable,  because  it  always 
receives  assistance  from  Cod.  This  nation,  thus 
suddenly  appearing  at  the  time  appointed  by 
the  inscrutable  counsel  of  Cod,  is  the  one  which 
has  been  honored  by  all  with  the  name  of 

3  Christ.     One  of  the  prophets,  when  he  saw 
beforehand  with  the  eye  of  the  Divine  Spirit 

'•"'  Eusebius,  in  this  rhapter   and    in  the   Dem.  K-'anif.  IV.  15,  is 
the  first  of  the  Fathers  to  mention  the  three  offices  of  Christ. 

1  Cf.  Tertullian,  Apol.   XXXVII.  (Aute-Niceiu-  Fathers,  Am. 

Ed.  Vol.  >:r.  p.  45). 

that  which  was  to  be,  was  so  astonished  at  it  that 
he  cried  out,  '•  Who  hath  heard  of  such  things, 
and    who    hath    spoken    thus?     Hath    the    earth 
brought  forth  in  one  day,  and  hath  a  nation  been 
born  at  once?"1     And  the  same  prophet  gives  a 
hint  also  of  the  name  by  which   the  nation  was 
to  be  called,  when  he  says,  "  Those  that  serve  me 
shall  be  called  by  a  new  name,  which  shall 
be  blessed  upon  the  earth."  ;;     But  although       4 
it  is  clear  that  we  are  new  and  that  this  new 
name  of  Christians  has  really  but  recently  been 
known  among  all  nations,  nevertheless  our  life 
and  our  conduct,  with  our  doctrines  of  religion, 
J^ave  not  been  lately  invented   by  us,  but  from 
the  first  creation  of  man,  so  to  speak,  have  been 
established    by    the    natural    understanding    of 
divinely  favored  men  of  old.     That  this  is 
so  we  shall  show  in  the  following  way.     That        5 
the  Hebrew  nation  is  not  new,  but  is  uni- 
versally honored  on  account  of  its  antiquity,  is 
known  to  all.     The  books  and  writings  of  this 
people    contain    accounts    of  ancient    men,  rare 
indeed  and  few  in  number,  but  nevertheless  dis- 
tinguished for  piety  and  righteousness  and  every 
other    virtue.     Of    these,    some    excellent    men 
lived  before  the   flood,  others  of  the  sons  and 
descendants  of  Noah  lived  after  it,  among  them 
Abraham,  whom  the   Hebrews  celebrate  as 
their  own  founder  and   forefather.      If  any        6 
one  should   assert  that  all  those  who  have 
enjoyed    the    testimony   of   righteousness,    from 
Abraham    himself   back   to   the  first  man,  were 
Christians  in  fact  if  not  in  name,  he  would 
not  go  beyond  the  truth.1     For  that  which        7 
the  name  indicates,  that  the  Christian  man, 
through    the    knowledge    and    the    teaching    of 
Christ,    is    distinguished     for    temperance    and 
righteousness,   for    patience    in    life   and   manly 
virtue,  and  for  a  profession  of  piety  toward  the 
one  and  only  Cod  over  all  —  all  that  was  zeal- 
ously practiced  by  them  not  less  than  by  us. 
They   did  not  care  about  circumcision  of        8 
the   body,   neither   do   we.     They   did  not 
care  about  observing  Sabbaths,  nor  do  we.     They 
did  not  avoid  certain  kinds  of  food,  neither  did 
they  regard  the  other  distinctions  which    Moses 
first  delivered  to  their  posterity  to  be  observed 
as    symbols  ;    nor  do  Christians   of  the  present 
day  do  such  things.      But  they  also  clearly  knew 
the  very  Christ  of  Cod  ;  for  it  has  already  been 
shown  that  he  appeared  unto  Abraham,  that  he 
imparted  revelations  to  Isaac,  that  he  talked  with 
Jacob,  that  he  held  converse  with  Moses  and 
with  the  prophets  that  came  after.      Hence       9 
you  will   find   those   divinely   favored   men 
honored  with  the  name  of  Christ,  according  to 
the   passage   which   says  of  them,  "  Touch  not 
my  Christs.  and  do  my  prophets  no  harm."0 

2  Isa.  Ixvi.  8. 

3  Isa.  Ixv.  15,  16. 

4  Compare  Justin  Martyr's  «•!/.>/.  I.  46. 
"  I  Cliron.  xvi.  22,  and  Ps.  cv.  15. 


[I  -4- 

10  So   that    it    is  clearly  necessary  to  consider 
that  religion,  which  has  lately  been  preached 

to  ;iH  nations  through  the  teaching  of  Christ,  the 

first  and   most  ancient  of  all   religions,  and   the 

one    discovered    by    those   divinely   favored 

11  men  in  the  age  of  Abraham.      If  it   is  said 
that  Abraham,  a  long  time  afterward,  was 

given  the  command  of  circumcision,  we  reply 
that  nevertheless  before  this  it  was  declared  that 
he  had  received  the  testimony  of  righteousness 
through  faith  ;  as  the  divine  word  says,  "Abra- 
ham believed  in  Cod,  and  it  was  counted 

12  unto  him  for  righteousness."  G     And  imleet 
unto    Abraham,   who    was    thus    before    h 

circumcision  a  justified  man.  there  was  given  1 
Cod,  who  revealed   himself  unto  him  ("but  th 
was  Christ  himself,  the  word  of  God),  a  prop! 
ecy    in    regard    to    those    who    in    coming 
should  be  justified  in  the  same  way  as  he.     Th 
prophecy  was  in  the  following  \vorcls  :   '"And 
ihee  shall  all  the  tribes  of  the  earth  be  blessed. 
And   again.   "He   shall   become  a  nation   grea 
and    numerous  ;    and    in    him    shall    all  th 
13      nations   of  the   earth   be   blessed." s     It  i 
permissible  to  understand  this   as   fulfillei 
in  us.  ^  For  he,  having  renounced  the  supersti 
tion  of  his  fathers,  and  the  former  error  of  hi 
life,  and  having  confessed  the  one  God  over  all 
and   having  worshiped  him  with  deeds  of  virtue 
and  not  with  the  service  of  the  law  which  was 
afterward  given  by  Moses,  was  justified   by  fuiti 
in  Christ,  the  Word  of  ( loci,  who  appeared  unto 
I'o   him,   then,   who   was   a   man  of  this 
character,  it  was  said  that  all  the  tribes  and  ai 
the  nations  of  the  earth  should  be  blesse<; 
m  him.      Hut  that  very  religion  of  Abraham 
has  reappeared  at  the  present  time,  prac- 
ticed   in   deeds,    more    efficacious    than    words, 
by  Christians   alone  throughout  the  world' 
What  then    should    prevent   the   confession 
that  we  who  are  of  Christ  practice  one  and 
same  mode  of  life  and  have  one  and  the 
same  religion  as  those  divinely  favored  men  of 
Whence    it    is    evident    that   the  perfect 
religion   committed   to   us    by  the    teaching  of 
<  not  new  and  strange,  but,  if  the   truth 
I'c  spoken,  it  is  the  first  and  the  true  re- 
ligion.     This  may  suffice  for  this  subject. 

we  can  niter,  so  to  speak,  upon    our  journey, 

•ginning  with  the  appearance  of  our  Saviour 

the  flesh.     And  we  invoke   God,  the  Father 

the  Word,  and  him,  of  whom  we  have  been 

speaking.  Jesus  Christ  himself  our  Saviour  and 

<ord    the   heavenly  Word    of  God,  as  our  aid 

and    fellow-laborer    m    the    narration    of    the 


It  was  in   the  forty-second  year    of  the       2 
reign  of   Augustus1  and  the  twenty-eighth 
after  the  subjugation  of  Fgypt   and    the  death 
Antony    and     Cleopatra,     with     whom     the 
dynasty  of  the  Ptolemies  in  Egypt  came  to  an 
end,   that  our  Saviour  and    Lord    Jesus    Christ 
was  born  in  Bethlehem  of  Judea,  according  to 
the  prophecies  which  had  been  uttered  concern- 
ing him.2     His  birth  took  place  during  the  first 
census,    while     Cyrenius    was    governor    of 
Syria:5      Flavins  Josephus,   the   most   cele-        3 
brated  of  Hebrew  historians,  also  mentions 
this  census;1  which  was  taken  during  Cyrenius' 

:a  h    of    InH,        <  fS      ,'C    relgn    °f   A"S»-««s  begin    with    the 

death    of  Julius    Causar   (as    Josephus  does  in  chap,  o,  §  ,    below) 
and    he    puts    the   birth  of  Christ  therefore   into  the    year  V^To 
I,   which   agrees.  with    Clement    of  Alexandria's    Stroll. 
uhogucs  the  twenty-eighth   year  after  the  conquest   of  Egypt  as 
«  birth-yea,  of  Christ)  ,  with  Epiphanius,  H*r.  I.I.  Z2,  and'    ro- 

'  i'sc  ,;,e  n       T  grs  the  r:mc  date  als"»>  his  "»->>". 

V  o          t'          '     I44^-      Irensms,  III.  25,  and  Tmullhn   Adi, 
«d.  3,  on  the  other  hand,  give  the    forty-first    year    of  A  "eultus" 
i-.c.        B. 

e,,tedein''tl^0f  -I    ^'Trf  a'S°  1u"t-;ertain.  the  <l*te  commonly  ac- 
epted  in   the   Occident    (Dec.  c5th)   having    nothing    older    than  a 
ta    century   tradition  in  us  favor.       The  date   accepted    by  the 
Jurch  (Jan.  6th)  rests  upon  a  somewhat  older  tradition,  but 
eitner  day  has  any  claim  to  reliability. 

f  Andre ws'in"^6!//"!,/^13011!8'0"  °f  th'S  subJect'  see  thc  essaX 
'/lurch  Hist.  I.'VgS  sq     "  '  PP-  X"22'     SCC'  a'SO)  Schaff's 

-  Micah  v.  2. 
:;Cf.  Luke  ii.2. 

ei'th^Greek^rm1'^11  V  Lati"  f°rm  ?f  the   nnmc  <>f«hich   Luke 

The  statement  of  Luke  presents  a  chronological  difficulty  which 
not    yet   been    completely  solved.     Quirinius  we   know   to  have 
een  made  governor  of  Syria    in  A.D.  6;   and  under  him   occurred  a 
ensus  or  enrollment  mentioned  by  Josephus,  Ant.  XVII.   13    5   and 
in  Act's  v'    ^       V   ;%,u.nd°ul*edly    the    same    as   that    referred 
i      r      ,    •  '    37'         ut    thls  tool:    place    some    ten    years   -ift,-r  th,- 
rth  of  Christ,  and  cannot  therefore  be  connected  wTth  That  event 
.my  explanations  have  been  offered  to  account  for  the  difficulty 
. i  smcc  ,,,,.  discovery  of  Zumpt,  the  problem   has  been  much  sir£ 
icd.       lie,    as  also   Mommsen,  has    proved   that    Ouirinius  was 
•^afcTni1"1'         yna>  lhe  first  time  {ro™  B'c-  4  (at.tumn)  to  ii.c    i. 


The  Time  of  his  Appearance  among  Men. 

AND  now,  after  this  necessary  introduc- 
tion to  our  proposed  history  of  the  Church, 

;  Oen.  xv.  6. 
r  Gen.  xii.  3. 

"  Gen.  xviii.  18. 


the  subject!  W  ma"er<  and    for   the   literature  of 

r-;«/KXVIMS    Her?    id'j"ti[les    the   cen!>»s    mentioned    by   Josephus 

tioned  m  I  ,  ki.  i,:  °  ^  "^"^  to  J"  A.«s   v.  37,  with  the  one  men- 

ke  i,    2     but  this  is  an   obvious  error,  as  an   interval  of 

and  he  ue  re  1  V  ^W0"  VaIeS1US  co»^rs  it  all  one  census, 
hence  regards  Eusebius  as  correct  in  his  statement-  but  this  is 
very  improbable.  Jachmann  (in  Illgen's  Zeitsckr^f'kf^T^l 
wi  ih\.ill?'i  '  P'  3?  S1-)'.accordin.g  '"  "is  custom,  charges  Knsebius 
s  ,  r  !  '  f  ce'>llon  and  P«yers.on  of  the  facts.  But  such  a  charge 
-  tterly  without  warrant.  Eusebius,  in  cases  where  we  can  con- 

Moreo'ver"  nmh1«  r/Ca"  ^  t^P  '°  ^r^  bee"  aIwaVs  <=onlciemio?,s 

.r    n  his  Chron.  (ed.  Sclioene  II.  p.  144)  he  identifies  the  two 

censuses   in   the  same  way.      But   his  Chronicles  were  written  some 

years  before  his  History,  and  he  cannot  have  had  any  object  to  de- 


Till-:    TIMM    OF    CHRIST'S    NATIVITY. 


.  term  of  office.  In  the  same  connection  he 
gives  an  account  of  the  uprising  of  the  Galile- 
ans,  which  took  place  at  that  time,  of  which 
also  Luke,  among  our  writers,  has  made  men- 
tion in  the  Acts,  in  the  following  words  :  "After 
this  man  rose  up  Judas  of  Galilee  in  the  days 
of  the  taxing,  and  drew  away  a  multitude'' 
after  him  :  he  also  perished  ;  and  all,  even 

4  as  many  as  obeyed   him,  were  dispersed.'"1 
The  above-mentioned  author,  in  the  eigh- 
teenth book    of   his    Antiquities,  in    agreement 
with  these  words,  adds  the  following,  which  we 
quote    exactly :    "  Cyrenius,  a    member    of   the 
senate,  one  who  had  held  other  offices  and  had 
passed   through    them    all  to  the    consulship,  a 
man   also    of  great    dignity   in    other    respects, 
came  to  Syria  with  a  small  retinue,  being  sent 

by  Cajsar  to  be  a  judge  of  the  nation  and 

5  to  make  an  assessment  of  their  property."7 
And  after  a  little*  he  says:    "But  Judas," 

a  Gaulonite,  from  a  city  called  Gamala,  taking 
with  him  Sadduchus,1"  a  Pharisee,  urged  the 
people  to  revolt,  both  of  them  saying  that  the 
taxation  meant  nothing  else  than  downright 
slavery,  and  exhorting  the  nation  to  defend 

6  their  liberty."     And  in  the  second  book  of  i 
his  History  of  the    Jewish   War,  he  writes 

as  follows  concerning  the  same  man  :   "  At  this 
time  a  certain  Galilean,  whose  name  was  Judas, 
persuaded  his    countrymen  to  revolt,  declaring 
that   they  were    cowards    if   they  submitted    to  i 
pay  tribute  to  the  Romans,  and  if  they  endured.  | 

besides     God,     masters     who    were     mortal."" 
These  things  are  recorded   by    josephus. 


About  (lie  '/'iine  of  Chris/,  in  accordance  with 
/'/Yy>//,v;r,  the  l\  >t/crs  loho  had  governed  lite 
jfet^'K/i  .\a/ion.  in  Regular  Succession  from 
the  Days  of  .////%/////;•  came  to  an  J<]nd,  and 
Herod,  the  Firs  I  Fo^igner,  became 

WHEN  Herod,1  the  first  ruler  of  foreign  1 
blood,  became  King,  the  prophecy  of  Moses 
received  its  fulfillment,  according  to  which  there 
should  "not  be  wanting  a  prince  of  Judah,  nor 
a  ruler  from  his  loins,  until  he  come  lor  whom 
it  is  reserved."  '  The  latter,  he  also  shows,  was 
to  be  the  expectation  of  the  nations.1 
This  prediction  remained  unfulfilled  so  2 
long  as  it  was  permitted  them  to  live  under 
rulers  from  their  own  nation,  that  is,  from  the 
time  of  Moses  to  the  reign  of  Augustus.  Under 
the  latter,  Herod,  the  first  foreigner,  was  given 
the  Kingdom  of  the  Jews  by  the  Romans.  As 
Josephus  relates,'1  he  was  an  Idumean  :'  on  his 
lather's  side  and  an  Arabian  on  his  mother's. 
Hut  Alricanus,'1  who  was  also  no  common  writer, 
says  that  they  who  were  more  accurately  in- 
formed about  him  re] tort  that  he  was  a  son  of 
Antipater,  and  that  the  latter  was  the  son  of  a 
certain  Herod  of  Ascalon,7  one  of  the  so-called 

cciye  in  them  such  as  Jachmann  assumes  that  he  had  in  his  Histfirv. 
It  is  plain  that  Eusebius  has  simply  made  a  blunder,  a  tiling  not  at 
all  surprising  when  we  remember  how  frequent  his  chronological 
errors  are.  He  is  guilty  of  an  inexcusable  piece  of  carelessness,  but 
nothing  worse.  It  was  natural  to  connect  the  two  censuses  men- 
tioned as  taking  place  under  the  same  governor,  though  a  little- 
closer  attention  to  the  facts  would  have  shown  him  the  discrepancy 
in  date,  which  he  simply  overlooked. 

r'  The  New  Testament  (Textus  Kec.)  reads  Ac^r  Uardi',  with 
which  Laemmer  agrees  in  his  edition  of  Eusebius.  Two  A1SS.,  fol- 
lowed by  Stephanus  and  Valesius,  and  by  the  English  and  German 
translators,  read  \ai,i-  /roAOr.  All  the  other  MSS.  and  editors,  as 
well  as  Rufinus,  read  Aadc  alone. 

'''  Acts  v.  37. 

7  Josephus,  A  lit.  XVIII.   i.  i.     Upon  Josephus  and  his  works 

ent  fn 

.    ,  .  .    .  . 

5.  2,  he  is  called  Judas  of  Galilee.  lint  in  the  present  section  Jose- 
phus gives  the  fullest  and  most  accurate  account  of  him.  Ganlo- 
nitis  lay  east  of  the  Jordan,  opposite  Galilee.  Judas  of  Galilee  was 
probably  his  common  designation,  given  to  him  either  because  his 
revolt  took  rise  in  Galilee,  or  because  Galilee  was  used  as  a  general 
term  for  the  north  country.  lie  was  evidently  a  man  of  position 
and  great  personal  influence,  and  drew  vast  numbers  to  his  standard, 
denouncing,  in  the  name  of  religion,  the  payment  of  tribute  to 
Rome  and  all  submission  to  a  foreign  yoke.  The  revolt  spread 
very  rapidly,  and  the  whole  country  was  thrown  into  excitement 
and  disorder;  but  the  Romans  proved  too  strong  for  him,  and 
he  soon  perished,  and  his  followers  were  dispersed,  though  many 
of  them  continued  active  until  the  final  destruction  of  the  city 
The  influence  of  Judas  was  so  great  and  lasted  so  Ion"  that  Jose- 
phus (Ant.  XVIII.  i.  i  and  6)  calls  the  tendency  represented  by 
him  the  "fourth  philosophy  of  the  lews,"  ranking  it  with  Phari- 
saism, Saddncecism,  and  Essenism.  The  distinguishing  character- 
istic of  this  "  fourth  philosophy  "  or  sect  was  it's  love  of  freedom. 
ror  an  excellent  account  of  Judas  and  his  revolt,  see  EwUd's 
Geshichte  ,/,-s  I'olkfs  Israel,  V.  p.  16  sq. 

"'Greek,     Stifioo^oc;     Rufinus,    Snilduchuiii.       lie,    too,    must 
have  been  a  man  of  influence  and  position.      Later  in  thr  same  para- 
graph  he  is   made  by  Josephus  a  joint  founder  with  Judas  of  the 
fourth   philosophy,  '  but    in    §  6   of   the  same  chapter,  where  the 
author  of  it  is  referred  to,  Judas  alone  is  mentioned. 

11  Josephus,  Jl.  J.  II.  8.  i. 

'Herod    the    Great,    son    of   Antipater,  an    Idumea: 
been  appointed  procurator  of  Judea  by  Oesar  in  B.C.  47. 
made  governor  of  Galilee  at  the  .same   time,  and   king 
the  Roman  Senate  in  n.c.  40. 

-  Gen.  xlix.  10.  The  LXX.,  which  Eusebius  quote.-,  hei 
ing  to  his  custom,  is  in  the  present  instance  somewhat  dilli. 
the  Hebrew.  •"'  ft>f,t. 

'  Euscbius  icfers  here  to  Ant.  XIV .  1.3  and  7.  3.  According 
to  Josephus,  Herod's  father  was  Antipater,  and  his  mother  Cypros, 
an  Arabian  woman  of  noble  birth. 

"  The  Ulnmeans  or  Edoiaitcs  \\ere  the  descendants  i;f  Esau,  and 
inhabited  the  Sinaitic  peninsula  south  of  the  Dead  Sea.  Their  prin- 
j  cipal  city  and  stronghold  \va.,  the  famous  rock  city,  Pctra.  They 
were  const-nit  enemies  of  the  Jews,  refused  them  free  passage 
through  their  land  (Num.  xx.  20);  were  conquered  by  Saul  and 
David,  but  again  regained  their  independence,  until  they  weie  fin- 
ally completely  subjugated  by  John  Hyrcaiuis,  v.  ho  left  them  in 
possession  of  their  land,  but  compelled  them  to  undergo  circum- 
cision, and  adopt  the  Jewish  law.  Compare  Josephus, .-/;,-/.  XIII  q. 
i;  XV.  7.  9;  /,'.  J.  IV.  5.  5. 

11  On  Africanus,  see  l!k.  VI.  chap.  31.  This  account  is  given  by 
Africanus  in  his  epistle  to  Aristides,  quoted  by  Eus.-bius  in  the  ni-x't 
chapter.  Africanus  states  there  v§  n)  that  the  account,  as  he  gi\es 
it,  was  handed  down  by  the  relatives  of  the  Lord.  I'.ut  the  tradi- 
tion, whether  much  older  than  Africanus  or  not,  is  certainly  incor- 
rect. We  learn  from  Joseflhns  (Ant.  XIV.  2),  who  is  the  lest  wit- 
ness upon  this  subject,  that  Antipater,  the  father  of  Herod  the  Gieat, 
was  the  son  of  another  Antipater,  or  Antipas,  an  Idumean  who  had 
been  made  governor  of  Idumea  by  the  Jewish  king  Alexander  Jan- 
n;eus  (of  the  Maccabrean  family).  In  Ant.  XVI.  n  Josephns  in- 
forms us  that  a  report  had  been  invented  by  friends  and  llatleicrs  of 
Herod  that  he  was  descended  from  Jewish  ancestors.  The 
originated  ••  ith  Nicolai  Damasceni,  a  writer  of  the  time  of  the 
Herods.  'Ih.j  tradition  preserved  here  by  Africanus  had  its  origin, 
evidently,  in  a  desire  to  degrade  Herod  by  representing  him  as  de- 
scended from  a  slave. 

7  Ascalon,  one  of  the  five  cities  of  the  Philistines  (mentioned 
frequently  in  the  Old  Testament; ,  lay  upon  the  Mediterranean  Sea, 
between  Gaza  and  Joppa.  It  was  beautified  by  Herod  ;  although 
not  belonging  to  his  dominions),  and  after  his  death  became  the 
residence  of  bis  sister  Salome.  It  was  a  prominent  place  in  the 
Middle  Ages,  but  is  now  in  ruins.  Of  this  Herod  of  Ascalon  nothing 
is  known.  Possibly  no  such  man  existed. 




servants  *  of   the   temple   of   Apollo.      This 
Antipater,  having  been  taken  a  prisoner  while 
a  boy  by  Iduniean  robbers,  lived  with  them,  be- 
cause his  lather,  being  a   poor   man,  was   unabl 
to  pay  a  ransom  for  him.      Crowing  up   in    tin 
practices  he  was  afterward  befriended  by  Hyrc 
mis,'1'  the  high  priest  of  the  Jews.      A  son  (if  hi 
was  that  Herod  who   lived    in   the   times   t 

4  our  Saviour.1"     When  the    Kingdom  of  th 
Jews   had   devolved   upon   such   a  man   th 

expectation    of    the   nations    was,   according    t 

prophecy,   already   at   the   door.      For  with    hii 

their   princes   and   governors,  win;   had   ruled   i 

regular  succession  from  the  time  of  Mose^ 

5  came  to  an  end.     before  their  captivity  an< 
their   transportation   to    liabylon    they  wer 

ruled  by  Saul  first  and  then  by  David,  and  be 
lore  the  kings  leaders  governed  them  who  wen 

called  Judges,  ami  who  came  after  Alose 
G  and  his  successor  Jesus.  After  their  retun 

from  liabylon  they  continued  to  have  with 
out  interruption  an  aristocratic  form  of  govern 
ment,  with  an  oligarchy.  For  the  priests  ha< 
the  direction  of  affairs  until  I'ompey,  the  Romai 
general,  took  Jerusalem  by  force,  and  defilec 
the  holy  pkues  by  entering  the  very  innermos 
sanctuary  of  the  temple."  Aristobulus,12  who 
by  the  right  of  ancient  succession,  had  been  u] 
to  that  time  bodi  king  and  high  priest,  he  sen; 
with  his  children  in  chains  to  Rome;  and  gave 
to  Hyrcanus,  brother  of  Aristobulus',  the  high 
priesthood,  while  the  whole  nation  of  the  (ew> 

was  made  tributary  to  the  Romans  froir. 
7  that  time.1'  l!ut  Hyrcanus,  who  was  the 

last  of  the  regular  line  of  high  priests,  wa. 
very  soon  afterward  taken  prisoner  by  the  1'arthi- 
ans,"  and  Herod,  the  first  foreigner,  as  1  have 

>ne.  lie  gave  up  his  kingdom  afterward  (66  u.c.)  to 
Ins  younger  brother,  Aristobulus;  but  under  the  influence  of  \uti- 
jiater  the  Iduniean  endeavored  to  regain  it,  and  after  a  long  war  with 
his  brother  was  re  established  in  power  by  I'ompey,  i,,  63  H.C.,  but 
:rely  as  high  priest  and  governor,  not  with  the  title  of  king.  He 
retained  his  position  until  40  B.C.,  when  lie  was  driven  out  bv  his 
nephew  Antigonus.  He  was  murdered  iu  30  B.C.,  by  command  of 
Herod  the  Great,  who  had  married  lus  grand-daughter  Mariamne. 
He  was  throughout  a  weak  man,  and  while  in  power  was  completely 
under  the  influence  of  his  minister,  Antipater. 

1    Ih  rod  the  Great. 

,h  1iII{l63,IhcV.whe"I'"mPey's  curiosity  led  him  to  ,,enetrate  into 
the  Holy  ol  Holies.  He  was  much  impressed,  however,  by  its  sim- 
plicity, and  went  away  without  disturbing  us  treasures,  wondering  at 
a  religion  which  bad  no  visible  God. 

12  Aristobulus  II. .younger  brother  of  Hyrcanus,  a  much  abler 
and  more  energetic  man,  assumed  the  kingdom  by  a:,  arrangement 
with  h,s  brother  in  66  ,,,-.  (see  note  ,„  ab  ,ve  .  In  63  B.C.  he  was 

deposed,  and  carried  to    Rome  by    IV,, y.      lie  died  about  48  K.C 

Eusebius  is  hardly  correct  in  saying  that  Aristobulus  was  king  and 

gn  priest  by  regular  succession,  as  his  elder  brother  Hyrcanus  w.s 

icir,  and    he  had   assumed   the  power  only  because  of  his 

superior  abibf 

and  remained  from  that  time  on  in  more  or  less  complete  subjection! 
either  as  a  dependent  kingdom  or  as  a  province. 

"  40  B.C.,  when  Antigonus,  by  the  aid  of  the  Parthians  took  Jeru- 
salem and  established   himself  as   king   there,  until   conquered   by 

already  said,  was  made   King  of  the    Jewish 
nation  by  the  Roman  senate  and  by  Angus-        8 
tus.      I  nder  him  Christ   appeared  in  bodily 
shape,  and  the  expected  Salvation  of  the  nations 
and    their  calling   followed    in   accordance    with 
prophecy.1'      From  this    time    the    princes    and 
rulers   of  Judah,    L   mean   of  the   Jewish   nation, 
came  to  an  end,  and   as   a   natural    consequence 
the  order  of   the    high  priesthood,   which    from 
ancient  times  had  proceeded  regularly  in  closest 
succession    from   generation    to   generation, 
was  immediately  thrown  into  confusion."''  Of        9 
these  things  Josephus  is  al.-^o  a  witness,17  who 
shows  that  when  Herod  was  made    King   by  the 
Romans  he  no  longer  appointed  the  high  priests 
from  the  ancient  line,  but   gave   the    honor    to 
certain   obscure   persons.      A   course    similar    to 
that  of  Herod  in  the  appointment  of  the  priests 
was   pursued  by   his   son  Archelaus,"  and  after 
him  by  the  Romans,  who  took  the  govern- 
ment  into  their  own   hands.1''1      The   same      10 
writer  shows  ""  that  Herod  was  the  first  that 
ocked  up  the  sacred  garment  of  the  high  priest 
under  his  own  seal  and  refused  to  permit   the 
high   priests   to   keep   it    for    themselves.      The 
same   course  was    followed    by    Archclaus    after 
him,  and  after  Archclaus  by  the  Romans. 

These  things  have  been  recorded  by  us  11 
in  order  to  show  that  another  prophecy  has 
been  fulfilled  in  the  appearance  of  our  Saviour 
Jesus  Christ.  For  the  Scripture,  in  the  book  of 
Daniel,21  having  expressly  mentioned  a  certain 
number  of  weeks  until  the  coming  of  Christ,  of 
rt-hich  we  have  treated  in  other  books,1"2  mo.-.t 
•learly  prophesies,  that  after  the  completion  of 
those  weeks  the  unction  among  the  jews  should 
totally  perish.  And  this,  it  has  been  clearly 
shown,  was  fulfilled  at  the  time  of  the  birth  of 
our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ.  This  lias  been  neces- 

teiod  in  37  n.c.     Hyrcanus  returned  to    Jerusalem 
•  as  no  longer  high  priest. 

'•"'  Compare  Isa.  i.\.  2;   xlii.  6;   xlix.  6,  etc. 

li;  Eusebius'  statement  is  perfectly  correct.  The  high  priestly 
incage  had  been  kept  with  great  scrupulousness  until  Hyrcanus  II 
he  last  of  the  regular  succession.  (His  grandson  Aristobulus  how-' 
ver  was  high  priest  for  a  year  under  Herod,  but  was  then  slain  by 
urn.)  Afterward  the  high  priest  wa.s  appointed  and  changed  at 
Measure  by  the  secular  ruler. 

Herod  the  Great  first  established  the  practice  of  removin"  a  high 
nest  during  his  lifetime;  and  under  him  there  were  no  less  than  six 
iltercnt  ones. 

17  Josephus,  Ant.  XX.  8. 

"*  Archelaus,  a  son  of  Herod  theGreat  by  Malthace,  a  Samaritan 
•oman,  and  younger  brother  of  Herod  Antipas.  Upon  the  death  of 
is  father,  [i.e.  4,  he  succeeded  to  the  government  of  Idnmea  Sama- 
la,  and  Judea,  with  the  title  of  Kthnarch. 

'  After  the  death  of  Archelaus  (A.I).  7),  Judea  was  made  a 
umian  province,  and  ruled  by  procurators  until  Herod  A^ripra  I 
-me  into  power  in  37  A.I),  (see  below,  P,k.  II.  chap.  4,  note  3).  The 

nges  in  the  high  priesthood  during  the  most  of  this  time  were 
cry  rapid,  one  after  another  being  appointed  and  removed  accord- 
ig  to  the  fancy  of  the  procurator,  or  of  the  governor  of  Syria  who 
Id  the  power  of  appointment  most  of  the  time.  There  were  no 
wer  than  nineteen  high  priests  between  the  death  of  Archelaus  and 
ic  fall  of  Jerusalem. 

2l^  Josephus,  Ant.  XV.  ir.  4.  51  Dan.  i\.  26. 

:-  It  is  commonly  assumed  that  Eusebius  refers  here  to  the  De»i 
vaiig.  VIII.  2  s,i.,  where  the  prophecies  of  Daniel  are  discussed  at 
ngth.  But,  as  Lightfoot  remarks,  the  reference  is  just  as  well  sat- 
fied I  by  the  F.cloga:  Proph.  III.  45.  We  cannot,  in  fact,  decide 
inch  work  is  meant. 

I.  7.| 


sarily  premised  by  us  as  a  proof  of  the   correct- 
ness of  the  time. 


The  Alleged  Disci-epaney  in  the  Gospels  in  rcganl 
to  tin'  Genealogy  of  Christ. 

1  M.-viTHKwand  I.uke  in  their  gospels  have 
given  us  the  genealogy  of  Christ  differently, 

and  many  suppose  that  they  are  at  variance  with 
one  another.  Since  as  a  consequence  every  be- 
liever, in  ignorance  of  the  truth,  has  been  y.eal- 
ous  to  invent  some  explanation  which  shall  har- 
monize the  two  passages,  permit  us  to  subjoin 
the  account  of  the  matter  which  has  come  down 
to  us,1  and  which  is  given  by  Africanus,  who 
was  mentioned  by  us  just  above,  in  his  epistle  to 
Aristides,-  where  he  discusses  the  harmony  of 
the  gospel  genealogies.  After  refuting  the  opin- 
ions  of  others  as  forced  and  deceptive,  he  gives 
the  account  which  lie  had  received  from  tra- 

2  dition1'1  in  these  words  :   "For  whereas  the 
names  of  the  generations  were  reckoned  in 

Israel  either  according  to  nature  or  according  to 
law,  —  according  to  nature  by  the  succession  of 
legitimate  offspring,  and  according  to  law  when- 
ever another  raised  up  a  child  to  the  name  of  a 
brother  dying  childless;4  for  because  a  clear 
hope  of  resurrection  was  not  yet  given  they  had 

1  "Over  against  the  various  opinions  of  uninstructed  apologists 
for  the  ( lospel  history,  Kusebius  introduces  this  account  of  Africanus 
with   the  words,  TT)>>   wipi.   rounai'  Ka.Tt\0ov<ra.v  ti«   ij/xw;   [<nopiav ." 

2  (  >:>  Africanus,  see  T.k.  VI.  chap.  31.     Of  this  Aristides  to  whom 
the  epistle  is   addressed  we  know  nothing.     He  must   not  be   con- 
founded with  the  apologist  Aristides,  who  lived  in  the  reign  of  Tra- 
jan (see  below,  I'.k.  IV.  c.  3).    Photius  (/.'//'/.  34)  mentions  this  epis- 
tle, but  tells  us  nothing  about  Aristides  himself.     The  epistle  exists 
in  numerous  fragments,  from  which   Spilta  (I iff  ttrief  des  Julius 
Africanus   an  'Aristides    kritisch    untersiicht   mid   hcrgcstcllt, 
Hallo,  1877)  attempts  to  reconstruct  the  original  epistle.     His  work 
is   the   best  and  most  complete  upon  the  subject.     Compare  Ronth, 
Kel.  Sacra-,   II.  pp.  228-237  and  pp.  329-356,  where  two  fragments 
are  given  and  discussed  at  length.     The  epistle  (as  given  by  Mai)  is 
translated  in  the  Ante- \~iecue  l-'atl'.ers,  Am.  ed.  VI.  p.  125  IT. 

The  attempt  of  Africanus  is,  so  far  as  we  know,  the  first  critical 
attempt  to  harmonize  the  two  genealogies  of  Christ.  The  question 
had  been  the  subject  merely  of  guesses  and  suppositions  until  his 
time.  He  approaches  the  matter  in  a  free  critical  spirit  (such  as 
seems  always  to  have  characterized  him),  and  his  investigations 
therefore  deserve  attention.  He  holds  that  both  genealogies  are 
those  of  Joseph,  and  this  was  the  unanimous  opinion  of  antiquity, 
though,  as  he  says,  the  discrepancies  were  reconciled  in  various 
ways.  Africanus  himself,  as  will  be  seen,  explains  by  the  law  of 
Levirate  marriages,  and  his  view  is  advocated  by  Mill  (On  the 
Mythical  Interpretation  <;f  t/n'  Gospel,  p.  201  sq.) ;  but  of  this  in- 
terpretation Rev.  John  Lightfoot  justly  says,  "There  is  neither 
reason  for  it,  inr,  indeed,  any  foundation  at  all." 

Upon  the  supposition  that  both  genealogies  relate  to  Joseph  the 
best  explanation  is  that  Matthew's  table  represents  the  royal  line  of 
legal  successors  to  the  throne  of  David,  while  Luke's  gives  the  line 

which  has  prevailed  widely  since  the  Reformation  is  that  I.uke  give 
the  genealogy  of  Mary.  The  view  is  defended  very  ingeniously  by 
Weiss  (Leiien  Jcsu,  I.  205,  ad  edition).  For  further  particular 
see,  besides  the  works  already  mentioned,  the  various  commentaries 
upon  Matthew  and  Luke  and  the  various  lives  of  Christ,  especially 
Andrews',  p.  55  sq. 

:)  Knsebius  makes   a  mistake  in  saying  that  Africanus  had    re- 
ceived the  explanation  which  follows  from  tradition.      For  Africami 
himself  says  expressly  (§  15,  below)  that   his   interpretation    is   not 
supported  by  testimony.      F.usebius'  error  has  been  repeated  by  most 
writers  upon  the  subject,  but  is  exposed  by  Spitta,  il'id.  p.  63 

4  The  law  is  stated  in  Deut.  xxv.  5  sq. 

a  representation  of  the  future  promise  by  a  kind 
of  mortal  resurrection,  in  order  that  the  name  of 
the  one  deceased  might  be  perpetuated  ;  — 
whereas  then  some  of  those  who  are  inserted        3 
in  this  genealogical  table  succeeded  by  nat- 
ural descent,  the  son  to  the  father,  while  others, 
though    born   of  one   father,    were   ascribed    by 
name  to  another,  mention  was  made  of  both — 
of  those  who  were  progenitors  in  fact  and 
of  those  who  were  so  only  in   name.      Thus        4 
neither  of  the  gospels   is  in  error,  for  one 
reckons  by  nature,  the  other  by  law.      For  the 

ine   of  descent   from    Solomon    and    that    from 
Nathan1''  were    so    involved,  the    one    with    the 

ther,  by  the  raising  up  of  children  to  the  child- 
less and  by  second  marriages,  that  the  same  per- 
sons are  justly  considered  to  belong  at  one  time 
to  one,  at  another  time  to  another ;  that  is,  at 
one  time   to  the  reputed  fathers,  at  another  to 
the  actual  fathers.     So  that  both  these  accounts 
are  strictly  true  and  come  down  to  Joseph  with 
considerable  intricacy  indeed,  yet  quite  ac- 
curately.     But  in   order  that  what   I   have        5 
said  may  be  made  clear  I  shall  explain  the 
interchange  of  the  generations.       If  we  reckon 
the  generations  from   David   through  Solomon, 
the  third  from  the  end  is  found  to  be  Matthan, 
who  begat  Jacob  the  father  of  Joseph.      Hut  if, 
with  Luke,  we  reckon  them  from   Nathan   the 
son  of  David,  in  like  manner  the  third  from  the 
end  is  Melchi,6  whose  son  Kli  was  the  father  of 
Joseph.      For  Joseph  was  the  son  of  Kli, 
the  son  of  Melchi.     Joseph  therefore  being       6 
the  object  proposed  to  us,  it  must  be  shown 
how  it  is  that  each  is  recorded  to  be  his   father, 
both  Jacob,  who  derived  his  descent  from  Solo- 
mon,  and   Kli,  who   derived  his  from   Nathan ; 
first  how  it  is  that  these  two,  Jacob  and  Kli,  were 
brothers,  and  then  how  it  is   that  their  fathers, 
Matthan  and  Melchi,  although  of  different  fami- 
lies, are  declared  to  be  grandfathers  of  Jo- 
seph.    Matthan  and  Melchi  having  married       7 
in  succession  the  same  woman,  begat  chil- 
dren who  were  uterine  brothers,  for  the  law  did 
not  prohibit  a  widow,  whether  such  by  divorce  or 
by  the  death  of  her  husband,  from  marrying 
another.     By  Kstha7  then  (for  this  was  the       8 
woman's  name  according  to  tradition)  Mat- 
than, a  descendant  of  Solomon,  first  begat  Jacob. 

•"'  Nathan  was  a  son  of  David  and  Bathsheba,  and  therefore  own 
brother  of  Solomon. 

i;  Melchi,  who  is  here  given  as  the  third  from  the  end,  is  in  our 
present  texts  of  Luke  the  fifth  (Luke  iii.  24),  Matthat  and  I.evi 
standing  between  Melchi  and  Kli.  It  is  highly  probable  that  the 
text  which  Africanus  followed  omitted  the  two  names  Matthat  and 
Levi  (see  Wcstcott  and  Hort's  Greek  Testament,  Appendix,  p.  57). 
It  is  impossible  to  suppose  that  Africanus  in  such  an  investigation 
as  this  could  have  overlooked  two  names  by  mistake  if  they  had 
stood  in  his  text  of  the  Gospels. 

7  We  know  nothing  more  of  Kstha.  Africanus  probably  refers 
to  the  tradition  handed  down  by  the  relatives  of  Christ,  who  had,  as 
he  says,  preserved  genealogies  which  agr«td  with  those  of  the  Gos- 
pels. He  distinguishes  here  what  he  gives  on  tradition  from  his 
own  interpretation  of  the  Gospel  discrepancy  upon  which  he  is 



Ami  when  Matthan  was  dead,  Melchi,  who  traced 

his  descent  hack   to    Nathan,  being   of  the   saim 

tribe"  but   of  another  family/'  married    her, 

9  as  before  said,  and  begat   a   son   Kli.     Thus 
we    shall    find    the    two,    laeob    and    !•'.!!,   al- 
though belonging  to  different  families,  yet  breth- 
ren  by    the   same   mother.       (  )f   these    the    one, 
Jacob,  when  his  brother  Kli   had   died   childless, 
took  the  hitter's  wife  and   begat    by   her  a  son"1 
Joseph,  his  o\vn  son  l>v  nature"   and  in  accord- 
ance with  reason.      Wherefore  also  it  is  written  : 
'Jacob  begat  Joseph.'  '-      Jitit  according  to  law  I;; 
he    was   the    son    of    Kli,    for    Jacob,    being    the 

brother  of  the  latter,  raided  up  seed  to  him. 

10  I  lence   the   genealogy   traced    through    him 
will  not  be  rendered  void,  which   the   evan- 
gelist   Matthew    in    his  enumeration   gives   thus  : 
'  Jacob  begat  Joseph.'      l!ut  Kuke,  on  the   other 
hand,  says  :  '  Who  was  the  son,  as  was  supposed  '  " 
(for  this  he  also  adds),  'of  Joseph,  the  son  of 
Kli,  the  son  of  Melchi'  ;   for  lie  could  not  more 
clearly  express  the  generation  according  to   law. 
And  the  expression  'he  begat  '  he  has  omitted  in 

;;  yci-os.  "  In  this  place  -ytro?  is  used  to  denote  f.nnilv.  Mat- 
than and  Melchi  were  of  different  families,  but  both  belonged  to  the 
same  Davidic  race  which  was  divided  into  two  families,  that  of  Solo- 
mon and  that  of  Nathan"  (Valesius). 

1(1  All  the  MSS.  and  editions  of  Kuscbiiis   read  rpiroi'  instead  of 
i'im-  here,     lint  it  is  very  difficult  to  m  ,ke  aay  sense  out  of  the  word 
T'"T"-'  »'  t  >is  conn,,  lion.      We  therefore  prefer  to  follow  Spitta  (se 
//•/,/.  pp.  07  sqq.)    in  reading  vim  instead  of  Tyui-oi',  an  emendati  >n 
which  he  has  ventured   to   make  upon  the  authority  of  Rutinus    \ 
translates  "  genuit  Joseph  lihum  suum,"  showing  no  trace  of  a 
Tor-    .''  "'  is  wanting  also  m  three   late  Catena:  which 

contain   the  fragments  of  Africanus'  Kpistle  (conn. are   Spitta    /•'•',/ 
p.  117,  n 

-  words  have  caused  translators  and  com- 
mentator    ;  real  diffn  ulty,  and  most  of  them  seem  to  have   misst 
tbeir  si  S]  itta  pro]  to  alter  by  readii 

iation  is  unnecessary.     The  remarks  which  1 

t!  e  relation  between  this  sentence  and  the 

"cxt  •?'*•  ••  '•'•<•••  'r.cxi  e  k-nt.     It  was  necessary  to  Africanus'  the  >ry 
that  Joseph   should  be  allowed  to  trace   his  lineage   through    [acob 
his  father  "  by  nature,"  as  well  as  through  Kli,  his  father  "  by  law  " 
and   hence   the  words  K;T\   Ariyoj-  are  added  and  emphasi/ed.      IJ 
was  Ins  son  by   nature  and  therefore  "  rightfully  to  be  reckoned  as 
This   explains    the    Uiblical    quotation    which    follows: 
\\  here-fore      -because  he   was  Jacob's  son  by  nature  and  could 
rightfully  be  o  ,  line,  and  not  only  in  the   line  of  Kb- 

it is  written,' 
'-   Matt.  i.  6. 

'  ^'c  K<;V.  J  '!")  Lightf.ot's  remarks  on  Luke  lii.  2;,  in  his 
Hebrew  n  .  „.•/;.,-  ,-  itai-o;. 

his  genealogical  table  up  to  the  end,  tracing  the 
genealogy  back  to  Adam  the  son  of  Clod'. 
This  interpretation  is  neither  incapable  of  11 
proof  nor  is  it  an  idle  conjecture.1"'  Kor 
the  relatives  of  our  Lord  according  to  the  llesh, 
whether  with  the  desire  of  boasting  or  simply 
wishing  to  state  the  fact,  in  either  case  truly, 
have  handed  down  the  following  account  :  "; 
Some  Idumean  robbers,17  having  attacked  Asca- 
1()11>  :l  <'ity  of  Palestine,  carried  away  from  a 
temple  o!  Apollo  which  stood  near  the  walls,  in 
addition  to  other  booty,  Anlipater,  son  of  a  cer- 
tain temple  slave  named  Herod.  And  since  the 
priest 1S  was  not  able  to  pay  the  ransom  for  his 
son,  Antipater  was  brought  up  in  the  customs  of 
the  Idnineans,  and  afterward  was  befriended 
by  llyrcanns,  the  high  priest  of  the  Jews. 
And  having  been  sent  by  Hyrcanus  on  an  12 
embassy  to  I'ompey,  and  having  restored  to 

'    m      h    t 

••Africanus    wish,      to  i    fer   the  words  w  ivopi&To  ('as  v 
""l  Olll>-  to  :  ,    'I ..,.,,/,,    hilt   also   to   th 

Tou    1|A  •  »•'>'  •         >•  h  although    it   is  acute   is   nevertheless 

^proper  and  I  i|    Luke   indicates  that  legal  generation  or 

adoption  by  the  wo,  ,  tTO,  as  Africanus  claims,  it  would 

follow  that   Christ  was   the   son   of  Joseph  by  legal   adoption   in   the 
same  way  that   Joseph    —  r   ""        •     "     • 

besides,  if  these  words,  o  ,  ,',  •  „;,.-„.  :lre  extended  to  the  words  T,,U 
HA,,  in  the  same  way  they  can  he  extended  to  all  which  follow  For 
there  m  no  rea  n  why  they  should  he  supplied  in  the  second  grade 
and  not  in  the 

lint  agains^Valesius,  Stroth  says  that  Africanus  seeks  nothin-  i-i 
the  words  „,«  e:o;Xi£To,  but  in  the  fact  that  Luke  says  "  he  was'the 
son  of,  while  Matthew  says  "  he  be.,  „."  Stroth's  interpretation  is 
followed  by  (Joss,  Heinichen,  and  others,  but  Kouth  follows  Vile 
sius.  Sputa  discusses  the  matter  carefully  (p.  n,  s,i  )  a-reeiiisr  with 
Valesius  that  Africanus  lays  the  emphasis  upon  , he'  worJs  £  lo, "  . 
beT,,  but  by  an  emendation  (introducing  a  second  ^  tYo^ro,  and 
reading  who  was  the  son,  as  was  suppo  cd,  of  Joseph,  the  son  of 
Jacob,  who  was  himself  also  the  son,  as  was  supposed  —  for  this  >,<- 
also  adds  -of  Eli,  the  son  of  Mclch,  ")  he  ap,!l  e°  the  i/"*,"«« 
only  to  the  first  and  second  members,  and  takes  it  in  a  more  general 

unnecessary.     The  words  which  occur  in   the  next  sentence    "and 
the  expression  '  he  begat  '  he  has  omitted,"  show   that   Africanus    as 
Stroth  contends,  lays  the  emphasis  upon  the  dilicrrnee  of  form  in 'the 
ealogie  .,  "  S  in  of"  and  "  he  begat."      The  best  explanation 
seems  to  me  to  he  that  Africanus  supp  iscs  Luke  to  have  implied  the 
legal  generation  in  the  words  "  the  Son  of,"  used  in  distinction  from 
t  .e  definite  expression   "he  begat,"  and  that   the   words    ws    ,,„    i. 
CCTO,  which  "  he  also  adds,"  simply  emphasize   this  difference  of  ex- 
pression by  introducing  a  still  .greater  ambiguity  into  Luke's  mode 
of  statement.      He  not  only  uses  the  words,  the  "  Son   of,"  which  have 
wide  1  uitude,  admitting  any  kind  of  sonsbip,  but  "  be  also   adds," 
•as    was    supposed,"    showing,    in    Africanus'    ..pinion,    still    more 
learly  that  the  list  which  follows  is  far  from  being  a  closely  defined 
table  of  desi  ent  by  "  natural  generation." 

'•'  This  seems  the  best  possible  rendering  of  the   Greek,  which 

Au<7U'.  oi'.Ot  it.',,,'  avaTrv&eiKTov  K.T.A.,  which  is  very  dark,  punctu- 
ated thus,  and  it  is  difficult  to  understand  what  is  meant  by  KOT' 
ai-aAiyii'  in  connection  with  the  preceding  words,  ''(.'ruse  translate- 
"  having  traced  it  back  as  far  as  Adam."'  who  was  the  son  of  God/ 
he  res  lives  the  whole  series  by  referring  back  t  .  <  !od.  Neither  is 
tins  incap.iMe  of  proof,  nor  is  it  an  idle  conjeUurc.")  The  objec- 
tions which  Spitta  brings  against  the  senteme  in  this  form  are  well 
founded..  He  contends  (p.  63  sqq.),aild  that  rightly,  that  Africanus 
could  not  have  written  the  sentence  thus.  In  restoring  the  original 
epistle  of  Africanus,  therefore,  he  throws  the  words  Kar'  .u'aAvem' 

of  proof,  nor  is  it  an  idle  conjecture."  That  Africanus  wrote  thus  I 
am  convinced.  But  as  Spitta  shows,  Kusebius  must  have  divided 
the  sentences  as  they  now  stand,  for,  according  to  his  idea,  that 
Africanus'  account  was  one  which  he  had  received  by  tradition,  the 
other  mode  of  reading  would  be  incomprehensible,  though  he  proba- 
bly did  not  understand  much  better  the  meaning  of  i:mr'  nva\vaiv 
as  he  placed  it.  In  translating  Africanus'  epistle  here,  1  have  felt 
justified  in  rendering  it  as  Africanus  probably  wrote  it,  instead  of 

owing  Eusebius'  incorrect  reproduction  of  it. 

ll!  The  Greek  reads  :<T<iv  «ai  TOUTO,  "  have  handed  down 
also."  The  «al  occurs  in  all  the  MSS.  and  versions  of  Kusebius, 
and  was  undoubtedly  written  by  him,  but  Spitta  supposes  it  an  addi- 
tion of  Eustbins,  caused,  like  the  change  in  the  previous  sentence, 
by  his  erroneous  conception  of  the  nature  of  Africanus'  interpreta- 
tii  m.  The  KUI  is  certainly  troublesome  if  we  suppose  that  all  that  pre- 
cedes _is  Africanus'  own  interpretation  of  the  Uiblical  lists,  and  not  a 
traditional  account  handed  down  by  the  "  relatives  of  our  Lord";  and 
this,  in  spite  of  Eusebius'  belief,  we  must  certainly  insist  upon.  We 
may  therefore  assume  with  Spitta  that  the  KO.I  did  not  stand  in  the 
original  epistle  as  Africanus  wrote  it.  The  question  arises,  if  what 
precedes  is  not  given  upon  the  authority  of  the  "relatives  of  our 
Lord,  '  why  then  is  this  account  introduced  upon  their  testimony,  as 
if  confirming  the  preceding?  We  may  simply  refer  again  to  Africa- 
's words  at  the  end  of  the  extract  (§  15  below)  to  prove  that  his 
erpretation  did  not  rest  upon  testimony,  and  then  we  may  answer 
with  Spitta  that  their  testimony,  which  is  appealed  to  in  §  14  below, 
was  to  the  genealogies  themselves,  and  in  this  Africanus  wishes  it  to 


known  that  they  confirmed  the  Gospel  lists. 
17  See  above,  chap.  VI.  notes  5  and  6. 

™  We  should  expect  the  word  "  temple-servant  "  again  instead  of 

priest  ";   but,  as  Valesius  remarks,  "  It  was  possible  for  the  same 

person  to  be  both  priest  and  servant,  if  for  instance  it  was  a  condi- 

m  of  priesthood  that  only  captives  should  be  made  priests."     And 

is  was  really  the  case  in  many  place*. 

I.  7-] 



him  the  kingdom  which  had  been  invaded  by 
his  brother  Aristobulus,  he  had  the  good  fortune 
to  be  named  procurator  of  Palestine.1'-'  lint 
Antipater  having  been  slain  by  those  who  were 
envious  of  his  great  good  fortune,-' was  succeeded 
by  his  son  I  lerod,  who  was  afterward,  by  a  decree 
of  the  senate,  made  King  of  the  Jews-1  under  An- 
tony and  Augustus.  His  sons  were  I  lerod  and 
the  other  tetrarchs.--  These  accounts  agree 

13  also  with  those  of  the  Greeks.-1'   I'.ut.  as  there 
had  been  kept  in  the  archives-1  up  to  that 

time  the  genealogies  of  the  Hebrews  as  well  as 
of  those  who  traced  their  lineage  back  to  prose- 
lytes,-'"' such  as  Achior-"  the  Ammonite  and  Ruth 
the  Moabitess,  and  to  those  who  were  mingled 
with  the  Israelites  and  came  out  of  Egypt  with 
them,  1  lerod,  inasmuch  as  the  lineage  of  the  Is- 
raelites contributed  nothing  to  his  advantage, 
and  since  he  was  goaded  with  the  consciousness 
of  his  own  ignoble  extraction,  burned  all  the 
genealogical  records,27  thinking  that  he  might 
appear  of  noble  origin  if  no  one  else  were  able, 
from  the  public  registers,  to  trace  back  his  line- 
age to  the  patriarchs  or  proselytes  and  to  those 
mingled  with  them,  who  were  called  (leo- 

14  rae.-8    A  few  of  the  careful,  however,  having 
obtained  private  records  of  their  own,  either 

i'J  Appointed  by  Julius  Ca:sar  in  47  r,.c.  (see  chap.  VI.  note  i, 

-"  lie  was  poisoned  by  Malichns  in  42  K.c.  (see  Josephus,  Ant. 
XIV.  n.  4). 

21  Appointed  king  in  40  B.C.  (see  chap.  V  I.  note  i,  above). 
"-"-  The  ethnarch  Archelaus  (see  chap.  VI.  note  18)   and  the  te 
trarchs  Herod  Antipas  and  Herod  Philip  II. 

"•'•  Cf.  Dion  Cassins,  XXXVII.  15  sqq.  and  Strabo,  XVI.  2.  46. 
24  It  was  the  custom  of  the  Jews,  to  whom  tribal  and  family 
descent  meant  so  much,  to  keep  copies  of  the  genealogical  records 
of  the  people  in  the  public  archives.  Cf.  e.g.  Josephus,  De  Vita 
§  i,  where  he  draws  his  own  lineage  from  the  public  archives;  anc 
cf.  Contra  Apion.  I.  7. 

K  n\pt  7rpo<jrjAiiru)i'.  Heinichen  and  Burton  read  ap\nrpoa\ 
TW!',  "ancient  proselytes."  The  two  readings  are  about  equally 
supported  by  MS.  authority,  but  the  same  persons  are  meant  here 
as  at  the  end  of  the  paragraph,  where  -;)ocrr;A  T.H'S,  not  np\irrpotrri 
\UTOV<;,  occurs  (cf.  Spitta,  pp.  v7  sq.,  and  Routli's  Reliqnite  Sacra 
II.  p.  347sq.,2dcd.). 

™  Achior  was  a  general  of  the  Ammonites  in  the  army  of  Hole 
femes,  who,  according  to  the    Hook    of   Judith,  was    a    general    < 
Nebuchadnezzar, king  of  the  Assyrians,  and  was  slain  by  the  Jcwi., 
heroine,  Judith.     Achior   is    reported   to  have   become  afterward 
Jewish  proselyte. 

27  The  Greek  reads  ci-cn-prjcrfi'  avruii'  Ta?  ai'aypa<|m<r  T<OI-  ytroi 
but,  with  Spitta,  1  venture,  against  all  the  Greek  MSS.,  to  inser 
Tratra?  before  T«<T  di/aypat/m?  upon  the  authority  of  Rnfinus  and  th 
author  of  the  Syriac  version,  both  of  whom  reproduce  the  wor 
(cf.  Spitta,  p.  99  sq.).  Africanus  certainly  supposed  that  Hero 
destroyed  all  the  genealogical  records,  and  not  simply  those  of  th 
true  Jews. 

This  account  of  the  burning  of  the  records  given  by  Africamis  i 
contradicted  by  history,  for  we  learn  from  Josephus,  lie  I  'ltd,  §  i 
that  he  drew  his  own  lineage  from  the  public  records,  which  wer 
therefore  still  in  existence  more  than  half  a  century  after  the  tim 
at  which  Herod  is  said  to  have  utterly  destroyed  them.  It  is  signif 
cant  that  Rufinus  translates  <»n>:es  11, -bra',' ruin  gciieratiancs  d, 
scriptie  in  Archh'is  templi  sccretioribtis  habebantiir. 

How  old  this  tradition  was  we  do  not  know;  Africanus  is  the  s  >1 
extant  witness  of  it. 

'-8  Tui>?  rt  KaAovjxtvove  yeiiapas.  The  word  yrtcopa?  occurs 
the  LXX.  of  Ex.  xii.  19,  where  it  translates  the  Hebrew  "^.  Tl 
(L  V.  reads  stranger,  the  R.  V.,  sojourncr,  and  I.iddell  and^Sco 
give  the  latter  meaning  for  the  Greek  word.  See  Valesius'  not 
in  loco,  and  Routh  (II.  p.  349  sq.),  who  makes  some  strictures  upo 
Valesius'  note.  Africanus  refers  here  to  all  those  that  came  ot 
from  Egypt  with  the  Israelites,  whether  native  Egyptians,  or  fo 
tigners  resident  in  Egypt.  Ex.  xii.  38  tells  us  tint  a  "  mixed  mil 
litude"  went  out  with  the  children  of  Israel  (  .-.-./MKTD?  TroAus),  an 
Africanus  just  above  speaks  of  them  in  tin;  same  way  (e7rifxi'<CTo>f). 

y  remembering  the  names  or  by  getting  them  in 
ome  other  way  from  the  registers,  pride  th  em- 
elves  on  preserving  the  memory  of  their  noble 
xtraction.  Among  these  are  those  already 
lentioned,  called  Desposyni,"'1  on  account  of 
leir  connection  with  the  family  of  the  Saviour. 
Doming  from  Nazara  and  Cochaba,""  villages  of 
udea/1  into  other  parts  of  the  world,  they  drew 
lie  aforesaid  genealogy  from  memory"-  and  from 
he  book  of  daily  records  ;!;;  as  faithfully  as 
'Ossible.  Whether  then  the  case  stand  thus  15 
r  not  no  one  could  find  a  clearer  explana- 
ion,  according  to  my  own  opinion  and  that  of 
3vcry  candid  person.  And  let  this  suffice  us, 

-'•>  Sccrn-ocruroi:  the  persons  called  above  (§  IT)  the  relatives  of 
..e  Saviour  according  to  the  flesh  (oi  Kara  <rap<a  truyytrt.s).  The 
jreek  word  signifies  "  belonging  to  a  master." 

•'•'>  Cochaba,  according  to  Epiphanius  (Haer.  XXX.  2  and  16), 
v-as  a  village  in  Hasanitide  near  Decapolis.  It  is  noticeable  that 
lis  region  was  the  seat  of  Ebionism.  There  may  therefore  be  sig- 
ificance  in  the  care  with  which  these  Desposyui  preserved  the 
enealogy  of  Joseph,  for  the  Ebionitcs  believed  that  Christ  was  the 
cal  son  of  Joseph,  and  therefore  Joseph's  lineage  was  his. 

••!  "Judea"  is  here  used  in  the  wider  sense  of  Palestine  as  a 
•  hole,  including  the  country  both  east  and  west  of  the  Jordan. 
The  word  is  occasionally  used  in  this  sense  in  Josephus;  and  so 
n  Matt.  xix.  i,  and  Mark  x.  I,  we  read  of"  the  coasts  of  Judea  be- 
yond Jordan."  Ptolemy,  Dion  Cassius,  and  Strabo  habitually  em- 
iloy  the  word  in  the  wide  sense. 

'•'•-  CK  jui'jj/Aj)?.  These  words  are  not  found  in  any  extant  MSS., 
jut  I  have  followed  Stroth  and  others  in  supplying  them  for  the 
bllowing  reasons.  The  Greek,  as  we  have  it,  runs:  Km  TYJV  irpo- 
:riMcr,;i'  yeren.*.oyia.v  i'K  Tt  TI,<;  /3.  !Aou  TWI-  ij/itpwi-  K.7.A.  The 
lartide  re.  indicates  plainly  that  some  piira<-j  has  fa'K-n  out.  Ru- 
iiius  translates  online  in  supra  liicttc  generatit».is  par  tim 
in  f  mi'  rite  r  partial  ctian;  c.r  dierutn  libris  in  ^'.unit/nil 
"rat  pcrdocelant.  Th.e  words  partim  tneinoriter  find  no  equiva- 
lent in  the  Greek  as  we  have  it,  but  the  particle  TV,  which  still 
remains,  shows  that  words  which  Rufinus  translated  thus  must 
lave  stood  originally  in  the  Greek.  The  Syriac  version  also  con- 
firms the  conclusion  that  something  stood  in  the  original  which 
lias  since  disappeared,  though  the  rendering  which  it  gives  rests 
evidently  upon  a  corrupt  text  (cf.  Spitta,  p.  101).  Valesius  sug- 
gests the  insertion  of  a-n  /<i>-.JM>)«,  though  he  does  not  place  the 
phrase  in  his  text.  Heinichen  supplies  /j.r:|/ioreocrai  TH,  and  is 
followed  by  Closs  in  his  translation.  Stroth,  Migne,  Routh,  and 
Spitta  read  IK  /UU'TJ,U.TJS.  The  sense  is  essentially  the  same  in  each 

•  :  Tt  has  been  the  custom  since  Valesius,  to  consider  this  "  I'ook 
of  daily  records"  (3<8A.,9  TWJ-  >'y/^p<"'')  the  same  as  the  "private 
records"  ('Oio)TtKa?  a-07pa<>a?)  mentioned  just  above.  but  this 
opinion  has  been  combated  by  Spitta,  and  that  with  perfect  right. 
The  sentence  is,  in  fact,  an  exact  parallel  to  the  sentence  just 
above,  where  it  is  said  that  a  few  of  the  careful,  either  by  means  of 
their  memory  or  by  means  of  copies,  were  able  to  have  "  private 
records  of  their  own."  In  the  present  sentence  it  is  said  that  "  they 
drew  the  aforesaid  ynealaxy  (viz.,  'the  private  records  of  their 
own')  from  memory,  or  from  the  Hook  of  daily  records  (which 
corresponds  to  the  copies  referred  to  above).  This  book  of  daily- 
records  is  clearly,  therefore,  something  other  than  the  i6iamKu« 
uTT.r/put/xis,  but  exactly  what  we  are  to  understand  by  it  is  not  so 
easy  to  say.  It  cannot  denote  the  regular  public  records  (called  the 
archives  above),  for  these  were  completed,  and  would  not  need  to 
and  apparently,  according  to  Afri- 

must have  been  at  nr.y  rate  an  incomplete  genealogical  source 
needing  to  be  supplemented  by  the  memory.  Private  family  record 
hooks,  'if  such  existed  previous  to  the  supposed  destruction  of  the 
public  records,  of  which  we  have  no  evidence,  would  in  all  prob- 
ability have  been  complete  for  each  family.  Spitta  maintains 
(n  101  sq.)  that  the  Hook  of  Chronicles  is  meant:  the  Hebrew 
u'E'H  ""!-"!.  words  or  records  of  the  days.  This  is  a  very  at- 
tractive suggestion,  as  the  book  exactly  corresponds  to  the  book 
described:  'tile  genealogies  which  it  gives  are  incomplete  and  re- 
quire supplementing,  and  it  is  a  book  which  was  accessible  to  all: 
public,  therefore,  and  yet  not  involved  in  the_  supposed  destruc- 
tion. The  difficulty  lies  in  the  name  given.  It  is  true  that  Jerome 
calls  the  Hooks  of  Chronicles  I'erba  Dierum  and  Hilary  SfJ'- 
inoncs  Die  nun,  &.C.:  but  we  should  expect  Africanus  to  use  hi 
the  technical  I.  XX.  designation,  IlapaAetTro^trcoi'.  P)Ut  whatever 
this  "  Hook  of  daily  records"  was,  it  cannot  have  been  the  "  pn 
\  ite  re.  ..r.l.i  "  v.ln.  h  wen-  formed  "  from  memory  and  from  copies,  _ 
but  was  one  of  the  sources  from  which  those  "  private  records' 
were  drawn. 




for,  although  we  can  urge  no  testimony  in  its  sup- 
port,:!l  we   have  nothing  belter  or  truer  to  offer. 
In  any  case  the  Gospel  states  the  truth."     And 
;U   the  end  of  the  same  epistle  he    adds   these 
words:    "  Matthan,    who    was    descended    from 
Solomon,  begat  Jacob.     And  when  Matthan  was 
dead,  Melchi,  who  was  descended  from  Nathan, 
be-at    KM    by  the  same  woman.      Kli   and  Jacob 
were    thus    uterine    brothers.      Kli    having  died 
childless,  Jacob  raised  up  seed  to  him,  begetting 
Joseph,  his  own  son   by  nature,  but   bylaw  the 
son  of  l<:ii-     'I'lius  Joseph  was  tlie   son  of 
J7      both."     Thus  far  Africanus.      And  the  line- 
_  age  of  Joseph  being  thus  traced,  Mary  also 
is  virtually  shown  to  be  of  the  same  tribe  with 
him,  since,  according  to  the  law  of  Moses,  inter- 
marriages between  different  tribes  were  not  per- 
mitted.""     for  the  command  is  to  marry  one  of 
the  same  family1*  and  lineage,-"7  so  that  the  in- 
lu-ritancc  may  not  pass  from  tribe  to  tribe.    This 
mav  suffice  here. 


The   Cruelty  of  Herod  toward  the  Infants,  and 
the  Mannrr  of  his  Death. 

VHIEX  Christ  was  born,  according  to  the 
prophecies,  in    Ilethlchem  of  Judea   at  the 
time  indicate,!,  Herod  was  not  a  little  disturbed 
by  the  enquiry  of  the  magi  who  came  from  the 
east,  asking  where  he  who  was  bom  King  of  the 
Jews  was  to  be  found,  —  for  they  had  seen  hi 
star,  and  this  was  their  reason  for  taking  so  IOIK 
a  journey;    for  they  earnestly  desired  to  wor^ 
ship  the  infant  as  God,1  —  for  he  imagined  tha 
his  kingdom  might  be  endangered  ;  and  he  en- 
quired therefore  of  the  doctors  of  the  law   wlu 
belonged  to  the  Jewish  nation,  where  they  ex- 
(  hrist  to   be  born.     When    he    learned 

the  genealogies  tLn.elve          i  ,'',"?,  "   '    'f^  '"  |™fi™iatioi,  ,,f 
that  their  testimony  is  invoked  in  s  T  \(f'!"'"     ^  M'l>l«».su,,, 

so  near    u   hand   ,ha,    F,,,  chins  \ 

.ct  that  Mary  belonged  to  he  '  rbe  l  ,,'",  ''C'  l"t  1>r""  o  thc 
«:t  itself  is  af,nndanHv  e  ,  K,  ,  1  !  ]  I''1'  ,'  h:'S  "°  f"rcc>  bllt  "'- 
f  antinnit  '  hilm01'S  '"diti'' 

that  the  prophecy  of  .Micah2  announced  that 
2thlehem  was  to  be  his  birthplace  he  com- 
mai,1(,Ic,(1>  In  a  single  edict,  all  the  male  infants  in 
Hethlehem,  and  all  its  borders,  that  were  two 
years  of  age  or  less,  according  to  the  time 
ncli  he  had  accurately  ascertained  from  the 
magi,  to  be  slain,  supposing  that  Jesus,  as  was 
mdeed  likely,  would  share  the  same  fate  as 
the  others  of  his  own  age.  ]5ut  the  child  2 
anticipated  the  snare,  being  carried  into 

•gypt  by  his  parents,  who  had  learned   from  an 
angel  that  appeared   unto  them  what  was  about 
to  happen.     These  things  are  recorded  by 
the  Holy  Scriptures  in  the  Gospel."     It  is       3 
worth  while,  in  addition  to  this,  to  observe 

e  reward  which  Herod  received   for  his  darin" 
'•rime  against  Christ  and  those  of  the  same  w 
I'or  immediately,  without  the    least   delay    the 
divine  vengeance   overtook    him  while    he' was 

1  alive,  and  gave  him  a  foretaste  of  what 
he  was  to  receive    after  death.     It  is   not       4 
possible    to   relate   here  how   he   tarnished 
the  supposed   felicity  of  his  reign  by  successive 
alam  ties  in  his   family,  by  the  murder  of  wife 
and  children,  and  others  of  his  nearest  relatives 
and  dearest  friends.'4     The  account,  which  casts 
every  other  tragic  drama  into  the  shade    is  de- 
tailed at  length  in  the  histories  of  fosephus.5 
How,  immediately  after  his    crime  against       5 
our  Saviour  and  the  other  infants,  the  pun- 
ishment sent  by(Jod  drove  him  on  to  his  death 
we  can  best  learn  from  the  words  of  that  historian 
who   in  the  seventeenth  book  of  his  Antiquities 
pi   the  Jews,  writes  as  follows    concerning 
Ins  end  : «   '  I!,lt  the  disease  of  Herod  grew        6 
more  severe,  God  inflicting  punishment  for 
his  crimes.    For  a  slow  fire  burned  in  him  which 
was  not  so  apparent  to  those  who  touched  him 
but  augmented  his  internal  distress  ;   for  he  had 
a  terrible  desire  for  food  which   it  was  not  pos- 
sible to  resist.     I  Ie  was  affected  also  with  ulcera- 
tion  of  the  intestines,  and  with  especially  severe 

is  in  the  colon,  while  a  watery  and  trans- 
parent humor  settled  about  his  feet.      He       7 
suffered  also  from  a  similar  trouble  in  his 
abdomen.     Nay   more,  his    privy  member   was 
mtrefied  and  produced  worms.      He  found  also 
excessive  difficulty  in  breathing,  and   it  was  par- 
ticularly disagreeable  because  of  the  oflensive- 

'   Matt.   ii. 

's  reign  was   very  successful    and    prosperous    and    for 
rfesl  Hyrare±±  u"dist«^l  »>y  external  t'ouhles     but  hi 
lie  was  embittered  by  a  constant   succession  ol  tragedies 
esiiltmg  from  the  mutual  jealousies  of  his   wives  (of  whom  h e  h  H 
;n)  and  of  their  children.     Karly  in  his  reign   he  slew  Hlrcanns 
•e  grandfather  of  h.s  best-loved  wife  Maria,,,™,  upon   sus,  icio        f 
-.son;    a  Imle    ater,  Mariamne  herself  was  put  to  death;    in  6 "  c 
and  in  !'n  rXh?,teI  f"     Alnsto.b"1»s.  ^ere  condemned  and  executed;' 
uh  l  a-       V  dayS  bef°re  his  dcath'  Antipatcr,  his  eldest 

-..  V  \      , oh,  1      Cn  lnst"lm=n«al   ^ /he  condemnation   of  Alexander 
I  Anstob  dus,  was  also  slam  by  h,s  orders.     These    murders  were 

s  •  n    v  fir       y  Ta'ly  °"lers  of/riends  •-""'  kin.lrt-d,  who  were  ,-„„ 
ntly  tailing  tinder  suspicion  of  treason 

•he  Jewit,hCwarCrb°0kS  °f  ^  ********  ™*  !"  *°  ^  book  of 
0  Josephus,  Ant.  XVII.  6.  5. 

I.  8.] 

Tin-:  END  OK  IIKROD. 


ness  of  the  odor  and  the  rapidity  of  respiration, 
lie    had    convulsions    also    in    ever)-    limb, 

8  which  gave  him  uncontrollable  strength.     It 
was  said,  indeed,  by  those  who  possessed  the 

power  of  divination  and  wisdom  to  explain  such 

events,  that  God  had  inflicted   this  punishment 

upon  the  King  on  account  of  his  great  impiety." 

The  writer  mentioned  above  recounts  these 

9  things  in  the   work  referred    to.     And    in 
the   second  book   of    his  History  lie  gives 

a  similar  account  of  the  same  1  Lerod,  which  runs 
as  follows  :7  "The  disease  then  sei/ed  upon  his 
whole  body  and  distracted  it  by  various  tor- 
ments. For  he  had  a  slow  fever,  and  the  itch- 
ing of  the  skin  of  his  whole  body  was  insupporta- 
ble. He  suffered  also  from  continuous  pains  in 
his  colon,  and  there  were  swellings  on  his  feet 
like  those  of  a  person  suffering  from  dropsy, 
while  his  abdomen  was  inflamed  and  his  privy 
member  so  putrefied  as  to  produce  worms,  lie- 
sides  this  he  could  breathe  only  in  an  upright 
posture,  and  then  only  with  difficulty,  and  he  had 
convulsions  in  all  his  limbs,  so  that  the  diviners 
said  that  his  diseases  were  a  punishment/ 

10  But  he,  although  wrestling  with  such  suffer- 
ings, nevertheless  clung  to  life  and  hoped 

for  safety,  and  devised  methods  of  cure.     For 

instance,  crossing  over  Jordan  he  used  the  warm 

baths  at  Callirhoe,'J  which  flow  into  the  Lake  As- 

phaltites,10  but  are  themselves  sweet  enough 

11  to  drink.      His  physicians  here  thought  that 
they  could  warm  his  whole  body  again  by 

means  of  heated  oil.  I!ut  when  they  had  let 
him  down  into  a  tub  filled  with  oil,  his  eyes  be- 
came weak  and  turned  up  like  the  eyes  of  a  dead 
person.  Hut  when  his  attendants  raised  an  out- 
cry, he  recovered  at  the  noise ;  but  finally,  de- 
spairing of  a  cure,  he  commanded  about  fifty 
drachms  to  be  distributed  among  the  soldiers, 
and  great  sums  to  be  given  to  his  generals 

12  and  friends.     Then  returning  he   came  to 
Jericho,  where,  being    seized  with    melan- 

•   n.  7.  I.  33.  5  and  6. 

H  nmvrjv  eirai  rii  i'ocri)fi.a.Ta  Af'yeu-.  Josephus,  according  to  the 
text  of  Hudson,  reads  irnirriv  eiVai  TU>I>  ao</><(TTa»'  TO.  vo a a  At- 
7<  iv,  which  is  translated  by  Traill,  "  pronounced  his  maladies  a 
judgment  for  his  treatment  of  the  Sophists."  Nicephorus  (//.  K.  I. 
15)  agrees  with  Kusebius  in  omitting  the  words  iiav  <roijn<rrioi',  but 
he  is  not  an  independent  witness.  Whether  Hudson's  text  is  sup- 
ported at  this  point  by  strong  MS.  authority  1  do  not  know.  If  the 
words  stood  in  the  original  of  Josephus,  we  may  suppose  that  they 
were  accidentally  omitted  by  Kusebius  himself  or  by  one  of  his  copy- 
ists, or  that  they  were  thrown  out  in  order  to  make  Josephus'  state- 
ment better  correspond  with  his  own  words  in  Ant.  XVI I.  6,  quoted 
just  above,  where  his  disease  is  said  to  have  been  a  result  of  his  im- 
piety in  general,  not  of  any  particular  exhibition  of  it. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  omission  of  the  words  in  Ant.  XVII.  6 
casts  at  least  a  suspicion  on  their  genuineness,  and  if  we  were  to 
assume  that  the  words  did  not  occur  in  the  original  text  of  Josephus, 
it  would  be  very  easy  to  understand  their  insertion  by  some  copyist, 
for  in  the  previous  paragraph  the  historian  has  been  speaking  of  the 
Sophists,  and  of  Herod's  cruel  treatment  of  them. 

'•'  Callirhoe  was  a  town  just  cast  of  the  I  lead  Sea. 

1(1  Tr)i'  'Am/mATiTir  Ai>ri)r.  This  is  the  name  by  whicli  Josephus 
commonly  designates  the  Dead  Sea.  The  same  name  occurs  also  in 
Diodorus  Siculus  (II.  48,  XIX.  98). 

choly,  he  planned  to  commit  an   impious  deed, 
as  if   challenging    death    itself.      For,   collecting 
from  every  town  the  most  illustrious  men  of  all 
'Judea,  he  commanded  that  they  be  shut  up 
in  the  so-called  hippodrome.     And  having      13 
summoned  Salome,"  his  sister,  and  her  hus- 
band, Alexander,1"  he  said  :  '  1  know  that  the  fews 
will  rejoice  at  my  death,    lint  I  maybe  lamented 
by  others  and  have  a  splendid  funeral  if  \ou  are 
willing  to  perform  my  commands.      When  I  shall 
expire  surround  these  men,  who  are  now  under 
guard,  as  quickly  as  possible  with  soldiers,  and 
slay  them,  in  order  that  all  Judea  and  evei  v  house 
may  weep  for  me  even  against  their  will.'  "  1;: 
And  after  a  little  Josephus  says,  "  And  again      14 
he  was  so  tortured  by  want  of  food  and  by 
a  convulsive  cough  that,  overcome  by  his  pains, 
he  planned  to  anticipate  his  fate.     Taking    an 
apple  he  asked  also  for  a  knife,  for  he  was  accus- 
tomed to  cut  apples  and  eat  them.     Then  look- 
ing round  to  see  that  there  was  no  one  to  hinder, 
he  raised  his  right  hand  as  if  to  stab  him- 
self." u     In  addition   to    these    things   the      15 
same  writer  records  that  he  slew  another  of 
his  own  sons15  before  his  death,  the  third  one 
slain   by  his    command,   and   that    immediately 
afterward  he  breathed  his  last,  not  without  ex- 
cessive pain. 

Such  was  the  end  of  Herod,  who  suffered      16 
a  just  punishment  for  his  slaughter   of  the 
children  of  Bethlehem,11'  which  was  the  result 
of  his  plots  against  our  Saviour.     After  this      17 
an  angel  appeared  in  a  dream  to  Joseph  in 
Fgypt  and  commanded  him  to  go  to  Judea  with 
the  child  and  its  mother,  revealing  to  him  that 
those  who  had  sought  the  life  of  the  child  were 
dead.1'     To  this  the  evangelist  adds,  "  P>ut  when 
he  heard  that  Archelaus  did  reign  in  the  room 
of  his  father  Herod  he  was  afraid  to  go  thither  ; 
notwithstanding  being  warned  of  God  in  a  dream 
he  turned  aside  into  the  parts  of  Galilee."  18 

11    Salome  was  own  sister  of  Herod  th 
sion  of  Joseph,  Costabarus,  and  Alcxas. 

on  of  Jose 
ty  of  Hero 

at,  and  wife  in  suc 
possessed  all  the 

d  himself  and  was  the   cause,  through  her  jealousy  and 

el  . 

envy,  of  most  of  the  terrible  tragedies  in  his  family. 

'-  Alexander,  the  third  husband  of  Salome,  is  always  called 
Alexas  by  Josephus. 

1:1  />'.  7.  I.  13.  6  (cf.  Ant.  XVII.  6.  5).  This  terrible  story  rests 
upon  the  authority  of  Josephus  alone,  but  is  so  in  keeping  with 
Herod's  character  that  we  have  no  reason  to  doubt  its  truth.  The 
commands  of  Herod,  however,  were  not  carried  out,  the  condemned 
men  being  released  after  his  death  by  Salome  (see  ibitl.  §  8). 

14  /.'.  7.  1.  33.  7  (cf.  Ant.  XVII.  7).  Herod's  suicide  was  pre- 
vented by  his  cousin  Achiabtis,  as  Josephus  informs  us  in  the  same 

'•"'  B.  7.  I.  33.  7  and  8  (cf.  Ant.  XVII.  7).  Antipater,  son  of 
Herod  and  his  first  wife  Doris,  was  intended  by  his  father  to  be  his 
successor  in  the  kingdom.  He  was  beheaded  five  days  before  the 
death  of  Herod,  for  plotting  against  his  father.  He  richly  deserved 
his  fate. 

";  Kusebius  gives  here  the  traditional  Christian  interpretation  of 
the  cause  of  Herod's  sufferings.  Josephus  nowhere  mentions  the 
slaughter  of  the  innocents;  whether  through  ignorance,  or  because 
of  the  insignificance  of  the  tragedy  when  compared  with  the  other 
bloody  acts  of  Herod's  reign,  we  do  not  know. 

17  See  Matt.  ii.  iy,  20. 

18  Matt.  ii.  22. 




The   Times  of  Pilate. 

1  THE   historian   already  mentioned   agrees 

with  the  evangelist  in  regard  to  the  fact 
that  Archelaus1  succeeded  to  the.  government 
after  Herod.  He  records  the  manner  in  which 
he  received  the  kingdom  of  the  Jews  by  the 
will  of  his  father  Herod  and  by  the  decree  of 
Cesar  Augustus,  and  how.  after  he  had  reigned 
ten  years,  he  lost  his  kingdom,  and  hi^  brothers 
Phili;>  .md  Herod  the  younger."  with  Lysanias,1 
still  ruled  their  own  tetrarchies.  The  same 
writer,  in  the  eighteenth  book  of  his  Antiquities/' 
s.ivs  that  about  the  twelfth  year  of  the  reign  of 
I'iberius,"  who  had  succeeded  to  the  empire 
after  Augustus  had  ruled  fifty-seven  years,7  Pon- 

tius   Pilate  was  entrusted  with  the  government 
of  Judea,  and  that  he  remained  there  ten  full 
years,  almost   until   the  death  of  Tiberius. 
Accordingly  the  forgery  of  those  who  have       2 
recently  given  currency  to  acts  against  our 
Saviour 's  is  clearly  proved.     For  the  very  date 
given  in  them"  shows  the  falsehood  of  their 
fabricators.     For  the  things  which  they  have       3 
dared  to  say  concerning  the  passion  of  the 
Saviour  are   put   into   the   fourth   consulship   of 
Tiberius,  which  occurred  in  the  seventh  year  of 
his  reign  ;  at  which  time  it  is  plain  that   Pilate 
was  not  yet  ruling  in  Judea,  if  the  testimony  of 
Josephus  is  to   be   believed,  who  clearly  shows 
in  the  above-mentioned  work '"  that  Pilate  was 
made   procurator   of  Judea  by  Tiberius   in  the 
twelfth  year  of  his  reign. 

'  Archel.xus  was  a  son  of  Herod  the  Great,  and  own  brother  of 
the  Tetrarch  Herod  Amipas,  with  whom  he  was  educated  at  Rome 
Immediately  after  the  deaiii  •  .f  Anlipati  ,!  by  his 

f.uher  as  his  successor  in  the  kingdom,  and  Augustus  ratified  the 
will,  but  gave  him  only  the  title  of  ethnarch.  The  title  of  Kin;;  he 
never  really  received,  alth  mgh  he  is  spoken  of  as  king  in  Matt.  ii. 
,  :  -  word  being  used  in  a  Ioo.;e  sense.  lli>  d  miini  in  .  onsisted 
of  Idumea,  Judea,  Samaria,  aud  the  cities  on  the  coast,  comprising 
a  half  of  his  father's  kingdom.  The  other  half  was  divided  between 
Herod  Antipas  and  Philip.  He  was  very  cruel,  and  was  warmly 
hate!  l»y  most  of  his  subjects.  ]„  the  tenth  year  of  hi-  reign  (ac- 
t  i  Josephus,  A  •.:.  XVII.  13.  2) ,  or  in  the  ninth  ; according 
to  •'.  J.  li.  7.  3),  he  AM.  ,  nplained  against  by  his  brother.s  and  ! 
sn  |octs  on  the  ground  of  cruelty,  and  w  '  to  Viennc  in  ' 

<>aul,  where  he  probably   died,   although   Jerome  says  that  he  was 
his  tomb  near  Bethlehem.      Jerome's  report,  however,  ;s  too 
late  to  be  of  any  value.     The  exact  length  of  his  reign   it  is  impos- 
sible   to    say,   as   Josephus    is    not    consistent    in   his    reports.     The 
difference   may  he  due  to  the    fact    that  Josephus    reckoned   from 
different    starting-points    la    the    two    cases,     lie    probably   ruled    a 
little   more   than   mac  year-;.      His    condemnation   took   place   in  the 
•  up    of    M.    /Emilius     Lepidus     and    L.    Arrnntins    (i.e.    in 
6  A.n.)   according  to    Dion  Cassius.    l.V.   27.     After  the  deposition 
Judea   was   made    a    R  >man    province    and    attached 
to  Syria,  aad  Lopomns  was  sent  as  the  first  procurator.     On  Arche- 
Josephns,  Ant.  XVII.  8,  9,  n  sq.,  and  /.'.  J.  I.  33.  8  sq. ; 

-  Philip,  a  son  of  Hero  1  the  by  his  wife  Cleopatra,  was 
letrarch  of  Katanea.  Trachonitis,  Anrinitis,  &c.,  from  n.C.  4  to 
A.I).  34.  He  was  distinguished  t  ir  his  justice  and  moderation.  He  is 
mentioned  only  once  in  t  ie  New  Testament,  Luke  i.i.  i.  On  Philip 

ephus,  Ant.  XVII.  8.  i;  u.  4;    XVIII.  4.  r. 
Herod  Antipas,  son  of  Herod  the  Great   by  his   wife   Malthace, 
wi,  letrarch  of  (jahlee  and  Pere.i  from  B.C.  4  to  -\  D.    •  ,      In  39  A.D 
he  .vent  to  Rome  to  sue  for  the  title  of  King,  which  his  nephew  Herod 
i   had  already   secured,      lint   accusations    against    him    were 
nperor  by  Agrippa.  and  he   thereby  lost   his  tetrarchv 
and  ,vas  banished  to  Lugdunum  (Lyons)   in  Gaul,  and  <lied  (accord- 
ing to  Josephus,  B.  y.  II.  o.  6)  in   Spain.      It  was  he  who  beheaded 
John  the  Baptist,  and  t,  hi.n    FC,US   was  sent  by  Pilate       His  char- 
acter is  plain  enough  from  tlu-  New  Testament  account.     For  further 
;>an,culars    of  his    life     see  Josephus,     Ant.    XVII.    8.     r;    „.    4; 
A\  [II.  2.  i;    5  a;id  7;    />'.  7.  11.  ..,. 

...    '    n!c   ';>'    .  '•   t'   here   is  mentioned  in   Luke  lii.  i   as 

Tctrarch  o!  Abilene  Ruscbius,  in  speaking  of  Lysanias  here, 
follows  the  accoun.  ,  that  of  J(l.  ,„.,.  -fnl.  tlle  httc; 

nowhere  says  that  Lysanias  continued  to  rule  ins  ictran  hv  after  the 
exile  of  Ar,  helans.  Indeed  he  nowhere  states  that  Lysanias  ruled  a 
tetrarchy  at  tins  period.  He  only  refers  (Ant.  XVIII.  6.  10;  XIX. 
5.  t;  XX.  7.  i;  and  I,.  J.  \\.  I2.  S)  to  .<  ,,, ..  u,trarchy  of  T  a. 

mdci^'dn     1CrayVv"  ,Ki  .en  ",'  ARripPa  r  and  "•  1)V  C:ll'Rula 

Cla,"td  "-,  "Is  more  into  [osephus  than  he  has 

.>  right  to  d  .and  yet  we  cannot  n.ssnme  that  he  is  guilt     of  willful 

_•    i  »  .       i  i  ''mis  man  DC   nas 

.  n>   right  to  d  ,,and  yet  we  cannot  assume  that"  he  is  guilty  of  willful 

iheli3  h'fn'f  I  l  !'lri>'  ql"te  lnn""--1'll>-  '".ve  interpreted  Josephus  in 
.he  light  of  Luke  s  account  without  realising  that  Josephus'  state- 
ment is  of  itself  entirely  nulchnitc  That  there  is  no  real  contra- 
diction between  the  statements  of  Joscpbns  and  I  nke  has  been 
abundantly  demonstrated  by  Davidson,  /I'twit/ictfon  to  the  New 
I'estaiiient,  I.  p.  215  sq. 

:'  Josephus,   A, it.  XVIIT.  2.  2  and,  4.  2. 

Josephus  reckons   here   from   the  deith  of  Augustus  (14  A.D.), 

ted    pro- 


The  High  Priests  of  the  Jews  under  whom  Christ 

IT  was  in  the  fifteenth  year  of  the  reign       1 
of  Tiberius,1   according   to   the   evangelist, 
and   in  the  fourth  year  of  the  governorship  of 
Pontius  Pilate,-  while  Herod  and   Lysanias  and 
Philip  were  ruling  the  rest  of  Judea,3  that  our 
Saviour  and  Lord,  Jesus  the  Christ  of  God,  being 
about  thirty  years  of  age,4  came  to  John  for  bap- 
tism and   began   the   promulgation   of  the 
Gospel.     The  Divine  Scripture  says,  more-       2 
over,  that  he  passed  the  entire  time  of  his 
ministry    under    the    high    priests    Annas    and 
Caiaphas/'  showing  that  in  the  time  which  be- 

8  Kuscbius  refers  here,  not  to  the  acts  of  Pilate  written  by 
Christians,  of  which  so  many  are  still  extant  (cf.  Bk.  II.  chap.  2,  note 
0,  but  to  those  forged  by  their  enemies  with  the  approval  of  the 
emperor  Maximinus  (see  below,  Bk.  IX.  chap.  5). 

;i  ..  7.,s  -apao-7)/i<:i«  xpdco?.  "In  this  place  napw.  is  the 
superscription  or  the  designation  of  the  time  which  was  customarily 
prefixed  to  acts.  For  judicial  acts  were  thus  drawn  up:  Cciisniatu 
Tibcrii .  \ugitsti  Septiino,  indncto  injudicium  Jfsn,  &c."  (Val.) 

Ajit.  \\II1.  2.  2.     Compare  §  i,  above. 

1  Luke  iii.  i.  Euscbius  reckons  the  fifteenth  year  of  Tiberius 
ir o>n  14  A.D.,  that  is,  from  the  time  when  he  became  sole  emperor. 
There  is  a  difference  of  opinion  among  commentators  as  to  whether 
Luke  began  to  reckon  from  the  colleagueship  of  Tiberius  (ti  or 
12  A.D.),  or  from  the  beginning  of  his  reign  as  sole  emperor.  Either 
mode  of  reckoning  is  allowable,  but  as  Luke  says  that  Christ  "  be- 
gan to  be  about  thirty  years  of  age  "  at  this  time,  and  as  he  was  born 
probably  about  4  B.C.,  the  former  seems  to  have  been  Luke's  mode. 
Compare  Andrew's  Life  of  our  Lord,  p.  28. 

-  Luke   says    simply,  "  while   Pontius   Pilate   was  governor  of 
Judea,"  and  does  not  mention  the  year,  as  Eusebius  does. 
:;  See  the  previous  chapter. 

4  Etisebius'  reckoning  would  make  Christ's  birthday  synchron- 
ize with  the  beginning  of  our  Christian  era,  which  is  at  least  three 
years  out  of  the  way. 

•"'  Luke  iii.  2  compared  with  John  xi.  49  and  51,  and  xviii.  13. 
Stroth  remarks:  "  Had  I  not  feared  acting  contrary  to  the  duty 
of  a  translator,  I  should  gladly,  for  the  sake  of  Eusebius'  honor,  have 
left  out  this  entire  chapter,  which  is  full  of  historical  inaccuracies  and 
contradictions.  Eusebius  deduces  from  Josephus  himself  that  the 
Procurator  Gratus,  whom  Pilate  succeeded,  appointed  Caiaphas  high 
priest.  Therefore  Caiaphas  became  high  priest  before  the  twelfth 
year  of  Tiberius,  for  in  that  year  Pilate  became  procurator.  In  the 
fifteenth  year  of  Tiberius,  Christ  began  his  work  when  Caiaphas 
had  already  been  high  priest  three  years,  and  according  to  the  false 
account  of  our  author  he  became  high  priest  for  the  first  time  in  the 
nineteenth  year  of  Tiberius.  The  whole  structure  of  this  chapter, 
therefore,  falls  to  the  ground.  It  is  almost  inconceivable  how  so 
prudent  a  man  could  have  committed  so  great  a  mistake  of  the  same 

I.  n.]  JOSKPHUS    ON    JOHN    THK    BAPTIST    AND    CHRIST. 


longed  to  the  priesthood  of  those  two  men  the 
whole  period  of  his  teaching  was  completed. 
Since  he  began  his  work  during  the  high  priest- 
hood of  Annas  and  taught  until  Caiaphas  held 
the  office,  the  entire  time  does  not  com- 

3  prise  quite  four  years.      For  the  rites  of  the 
law   having    been    already   abolished    since 

that  time,  the  customary  usages  in  connection 
with  the  worship  of  God,  according  to  which 
the  high  priest  acquired  his  office  by  hereditary 
descent  and  held  it  for  life,  were  also  annulled, 
and  there  were  appointed  to  the  high  priesthood 
by  the  Roman  governors  now  one  and  now  an- 
other person  who  continued  in  office  not 

4  more  than  one  year."    Josephus  relates  that 
there  were   four  high  priests  in  succession 

from  Annas  to  Caiaphas.  Thus  in  the  same 
book  of  the  Antiquities "  he  writes  as  follows  : 
"Valerius  Gratus*  having  put  an  end  to  the 
priesthood  of  Ananus1'  appoints  Ishmael,1"  the 
son  of  Fabi,  high  priest.  And  having  removed 
him  after  a  little  he  appoints  Eleazer,11  the  son 
of  Ananus  the  high  priest,  to  the  same  office. 
And  having  removed  him  also  at  the  end  of  a 
year  he  gives  the  high  priesthood  to  Simon,1-  the 
son  of  Camithus.  Put  he  likewise  held  the 
honor  no  more  than  a  year,  when  Josephus, 
called  also  Caiaphas,13  succeeded  him."  Ac- 
sort  as  that  which  he  had  denounced  a.  little  before  in  connection 
with  the  Acts  <>/  J'iliitf." 

The  whole  confusion  is  due  to  Eusebius'  mistaken  interpretation 
of  the  Gospel  account,  which  he  gives  in  this  sentence.  It  is  now 
universally  assumed  that  Annas  is  named  by  the  evangelists  as  ex- 
high-priest,  but  Kusebius,  not  understanding  this,  supposed  that  a 
part  of  Christ's  ministry  must  have  fallen  during  the  active  adminis- 
tration of  Annas,  a  part  during  that  of  Caiaphas,  and  therefore  his 
ministry  must  have  run  from  the  one  to  the  other,  embracing  the 
intermediate  administrations  of  Ishmael,  Eleazer,  and  Simon,  and  cov- 
ering less  than  four  years.  In  order  to  make  this  out  he  interprets 
the  "  not  long  after  "  in  connection  with  Ishmael  as  meaning  "one 
year,"  which  is  incorrect,  as  shown  below  in  note  9.  How  Euse- 
bius could  have  overlooked  the  plain  fact  that  all  this  occurred  under 
Valerius  Gratus  instead  of  Pilate,  and  therefore  many  years  too 
early  (when  he  himself  states  the  fact),  is  almost  incomprehensible. 
Absorbed  in  making  out  his  interpretation,  he  must  have  thought- 
lessly confounded  the  names  of  Gratus  and  Pilate  while  reading  the 
account.  He  cannot  have  acted  knowingly,  with  the  intention  to 
deceive,  for  he  must  have  seen  that  anybody  reading  his  account 
would  discover  the  glaring  discrepancy  at  once. 

"  It  is  true  that  under  the  Roman  governors  the  high  priests 
were  frequently  changed  (cf.  above,  chap.  6,  note  19),  but  there  was 
no  regularly  prescribed  interval,  and  some  continued  in  office  for 
many  years;  for  instance,  Caiaphas  was  high  priest  for  more  than 
ten  years,  during  the  whole  of  Pilate's  administration,  having  been 
appointed  by  Valerius  Gratus,  Pilate's  predecessor,  and  his  succes- 
sor being  appointed  by  the  Proconsul  Vitellius  in  37  A.n.  (?•/•>/.  Jo- 
sephus, Ant.  XVIII.  2.  2  and  4.  3).  '  Josephus,  Ant.  XVIII.  2.  2. 

8  This  Valerius  Gratus  was  made  procurator  by  Tiberius,  soon 
after  his  accession,  and  ruled  about  eleven  years,  when  he  was  suc- 
ceeded by  Pilate  in  26  A.D. 

1J  Ananus  (or  Annas)  was  appointed  high  priest  by  Quirinius, 
governor  of  Syria,  in  6  or  7  A.D.  (Josephus,  Ant.  XVIII.  2.  i),  and 
remained  in  office  until  A.D.  14  or  15,  when  he  was  deposed  by 
Valerius  Gratus  ({6.  §  2).  This  forms  another  instance,  therefore, 
of  a  term  of  office  more  than  one  year  in  length.  Annas  is  a  famil- 
iar personage  from  his  connection  with  the  Gospel  history;  but  the 
exact  position  which  he  occupied  during  Christ's  ministry  is  difficult 
to  determine  (cf.  Wieseler's  Chronology  of  the  Life  of  Christ). 

10  Either  this    Ishmael    must   have   held  the  office  eight    or    ten 
years,  or  else  Caiaphas  that  long  before   Pilate's  time,  for  otherwise 
Gratus'  period  is  not  filled  up.     Josephus'  statement  is  indefinite  in 
regard  to  Ishmael,  and  Eusebius  is  wrong  in  confining  his  term  of 
office  to  one  year. 

11  According  to  Josephus,  Ant.  XX.  9.   i,  five  of  the  sons  of 
Annas  became  high  priests. 

'-  This  Simon  is  an  otherwise  unknown  personage. 
1:1  Joseph  Caiaphas,  son-in-law  of  Annas,  is  well  known  from  his 
connection  with  the  Gospel  history. 

VOL.   I.  W 

cordingly  the  whole  time  of  our  Saviour's  min- 
istry is  shown  to  have  been  not  quite  four  full 
years,  four  high  priests,  from  Annas  to  the  acces- 
sion of  Caiaphas,  having  held  office  a  year  each. 
The  Gospel  therefore  has  rightly  indicated  Caia- 
phas as  the  high  priest  under  whom  the  Saviour 
suffered.  From  which  also  we  can  see  that  the 
time  of  our  Saviour's  ministry  does  not  disagree 
with  the  foregoing  investigation. 

Our  Saviour  and  Lord,  not  long  after  the  5 
beginning  of  his  ministry,  called  the  twelve 
apostles,11  and  these  alone  of  all  his  disciples 
he  named  apostles,  as  an  especial  honor.  And 
again  he  appointed  seventy  others  whom  he  sent 
out  two  by  two  before  his  face  into  every  place 
and  city  whither  he  himself  was  about  to  come.1''' 


Testimonies  in  Regard  to  y<>h>i  t)ie  Baptist  and 

NOT  long  after  this  John  the  Baptist  was  1 
beheaded  by  the  younger  Herod,1  as  is 
stated  in  the  Gospels.-  Josephus  also  records 
the  same  fact,"  making  mention  of  Herodias  4  by 
name,  and  stating  that,  although  she  was  the 
wife  of  his  brother,  Herod  made  her  his  own  wife 
after  divorcing  his  former  lawful  wife,  who  was 
the  daughter  of  Aretas,"'  king  of  Petra,  and  sepa- 
rating Herodias  from  her  husband  while  he 
was  still  alive.  It  was  on  her  account  also  2 
that  he  slew  John,  and  waged  war  with 
Aretas,  because  of  the  disgrace  inflicted  on  the 
daughter  of  the  latter.  Josephus  relates  that  in 
this  war,  when  they  came  to  battle,  Herod's 
entire  army  was  destroyed,'1  and  that  he  suffered 
this  calamity  on  account  of  his  crime  against 

The  same  Josephus  confesses  in  this  ac-       3 
count  that  John  the  Paptist  was  an  exceed- 
ingly righteous  man,  and  thus  agrees  with    the 
things  written  of  him  in  the  Gospels.    He  records 
also  that  Herod  lost  his  kingdom  on  account  of 

1  Josephus,  Ant.  XVIII.  5. 

11  See  Matt.  x.  1-4;    Mark  iii.  14-19;   Luke 

'•'  See  Lukex.  i. 

1  Herod  Antipas. 

-  Matt.  xiv.  1-12;   Mark  vi.  17  sq. 

4  Herodias,  a  daughter  of  Aristobulus  and  grand-daughter  of 
Herod  the  Great,  first  married  Herod  Philip  (whom  Josephus  calls 
Herod,  and  whom  the  Gospels  call  Philip),  a  son  of  Herod  the 
Great,  and  therefore  her  uncle,  who  seems  to  have  occupied  a 
private  station.  Afterwards,  leaving  him  during  his  lifetime,  she 
married  another  uncle,  Herod  Antipas  the  Tetrarch.  When  her 
husband,  Antipas,  was  banished  to  Gaul,  she  voluntarily  shared  his 
banishment  and  died  there.  Her  character  is  familiar  from  the 
accounts  of  the  New  Testament. 

"  Aretas  /Eneas  is  identical  with  the  Aretas  mentioned  in  2  Cor. 
xi.  32,  in  connection  with  Paul's  flight  from  Jerusalem  (cf.  Wicseler, 
Citron,  dcs  ap.  Zcitaltcrs,  p.  142' and  ii'>7"sq.).  He  was  king  of 
Arabia  Nabatrea,  whose  capital  was  the  famous  rock  city,  Petra, 
which  gave  its  name  to  the  whole  country,  which  was  in  consequence 
commonly  called  Arabia  Pctrrca. 

''  In  this  emergency  Herod  appealed  to  Tiberius,  with  whom  he 
was  a  favorite,  and  the  emperor  commanded  Vitellius,  the  u.nernnr 
of  Syria,  to  proceed  against  Aretas.  The  death  of  Tib.-rius  inter- 
rupted operations,  and  under  Caligula  friendship  existed  !  c-tween 
Aretas  and  the  Romans. 


the  same  Herodias,  and  that  he  was  driven   into 
banishment   with    her,    and    condemned    to 

4  live  at  Yienne  in   (laul.7      He  relates  these 
things   in  the  eighteenth   book  of  the  An- 
tiquities, where  he  writes  of  John  in  the  following 
words:"  "  It   seemed   to   some   of  the  Jews   that 
the  army  of  Herod  was   destroyed    by  ( ,od,  who 

most  justly  avenged  John  called 'the  Baptist. 

5  For  Ik-rod  slew  him,  a  good  man  and   one 
who  exhorted  the  Jews  to  come  and  receive 

baptism,  practicing  virtue  and  exercising  right- 
eousness toward  each  other  and  toward  God  ;  for 
baptism  would  appear  acceptable  unto  Him  when 
they  employed  it,  not  for  the  re-mission  of  certain 
sins,  but  for  the  purification  of  the  body,  as  the 
sou!  had  been  already  purified  in  righteous- 

6  ness.       And    when    others   gathered    about 
him  (for  they  found  much  pleasure  in  listen- 
ing to   his   words),  Herod   feared   that   his  great 
influence  might  lead  to  some  sedition,  for  i hey 
appeared  ready  to  do  whatever  he  might  advise 
He  therefore  considered   it  much  better,  befor 
any  new  thing  should  be  done  under    form's  ii 
fluence,  to  anticipate  it  by  slaying  him,  than  t 
repent  after  revolution  had  come,  and  when  h 
found  himself  in  the  midst  of  difficulties. ;i     ( )i 
account  of  Herod's  suspicion  John  was  sent  ii 

bonds  to  the   above-mentioned    citadel   o 
7        Madiera,1"  and  there  slain."    After  relating 

these    things    concerning  John,   he    make 
mention  of  our  Saviour  in  the  same  work,  in  the 
following  words  :n  "And  there  lived  at  that  time 

[I.  n. 

Jesus,  a  wise  man,  if  indeed  it  be  proper  to  call 
him  a  man.      For  he  was  a  doer  of  wonderful 
works,  and  a  teacher  of  such  men  as  receive  the 
truth  in  gladness.      And  he  attached   to  himself 
many  of  the  Jews,   and  many  also  of  the 
('.reeks.      Fie  was  the  Christ.     When  Pilate,       8 
on   the   accusation   of  our    principal    men, 
condemned    him    to    the    cross,   those   who   had 
loved  him  in  the  beginning  did  not  cease   loving 
him.      For  he  appeared  unto  them  again  alive  on 

the  third  day,  the  divine  prophets  having  told  these 

and  countless  other  wonderful  things  concerning 
him.     Moreover,  the  race  of  Christians,  named 
after  him,  continues  down  to   the   present 
day."     Since  an  historian,  who  is  one  of  the       9 
Hebrews    themselves,   has   recorded   in  his 
work  these  things  concerning  John  the   Baptist 
and  our  Saviour,  what  excuse  is  there   left  for 
not   convicting   them   of  being   destitute   of  all 
shame,  who  have  forged  the  acts  against  them?1- 
But  let  this  suffice  here. 


The  Disciples  of  our  Saviour. 

THE  names  of  the  apostles  of  our  Sa-  1 
viour  are  known  to  every  one  from  the 
Cospels.1  Put  there  exists  no  catalogue  of  the 
seventy  disciples.2  liarnabas,  indeed,  is  said  to 
have  been  one  of  them,  of  whom  the  Acts  of 
the  apostles  makes  mention  in  various  places,3 

r  i  •  -i  i  .  '      ,-         ,  _,-..-  *  iv.ii ni_  <.!.;•>  LI  ic  mat  ( 

of  his  exile.  Eusebius  here  confounds  the  fate  of  Herod  with  tha 
•  >t  Archelaus,  who  was  banished  to  Vienne  (see  above  chin  o 
note  i).  -  •  f •  . 

there  remains  almost  nothing:  and  it  seems  inconceivable  that  Tost 
phus  should  have  given  so  colorless  a  report  of  one  whom  the  Jew 
regarded  with  such  enmity,  if  he  mentioned  him  at  all.  The  fourt 

•  *ni.  AViu.  52.  Inis  passage  upon  John  the  Baptist  i 
referred  to  by  (  r,^,,  ,„  his  CW™  Cr/s.  I.  47,  and  is  found  in  af 
our  M.SS.  of  Josephus.  It  is  almost  universally  admitted  to  be 

genuine,  and  there  is  no  good  reason  to  doubt   that  it  is,  for  such   • 

dispassionate    and  strictly  impartial  account  of  John  could    hardlv 
have  been  written  by  a  Christian  interpolator. 

I  ,     -      .  _---_,     ...  ^±1  ^,  £wii,_tm    iv-, ii     i)i     UOIJU- 

lar  outbreaks,  one  can  see  that  ho  no   longer  had  perfect  recollec 
tion   of  the^ matter.     The  account  of  Mark  is  far  more  exact  and 


and  Schiirer  adopt  this  view.      f3)  It   i 

view  might  be  possible,  and  is  more  natural   than   the   third-   but  it 
seems  as  if  some  trace  of  the  original  calumny  would   have  survived 

isted.     To    me,   however,    the   decisive 

gument  is  the  decided  break  which  the  passage  makes  in  the  con- 

>  no  reason   to  suppose   it   true,  for  it   is  con- 

r.:l.1:t°u  1ius<r!)i"s',Kenen!1  «l>«'ation  for  honesty,  and  the  manner 


-  See  chap.  9,  note  8,  above. 

J  See  Matt.  x.  2-4;   Luke  vi.  13-16;   Mark  iii.  14-10. 
-  see  Luke  x.  1-20. 

;•>  See  Acts  iv.  36,  xiii.  i  et  passim.  Clement  of  Alexandria 
Strom.  II.  20)  calls  Barnabas  one  of  the  Seventy.  This  tradition 
not  ui  itself  improbable,  but  we  can  trace  it  back  no  further  than 
lement.  The  Clementine  Recognitions  and  Homilies  frequently 
ention  Barnabas  as  an  apostle  active  in  Alexandria  and  in  Rome 
ne  tradition  sends  him  to  Milan  and  makes  him  the  first  bishop  of 
ie  church  there,  but  the  silence  of  Ambrose  in  regard  to  it  is  a 
imcient  proof  of  its  groundlessness.  There  is  extant  an  apocryphal 
ork,  probably  of  the  fifth  century,  entitled  Ada  et  Passto  Dar- 
alio!  in  Cyfro,  which  relates  his  death  by  martyrdom  in  Cyprus 
ie  tradition  may  be  true,  but  its  existence  has  no  weight/Bar, 
abas  came  from  Cyprus  and  labored  therefor  at  least  a  time  It 
-uld  be  natural,  therefore,  to  assign  his  death  (which  was  neces- 
•ily  martyrdom,  for  no  Christian  writer  of  the  early  centuries  could 
we  admitted  that  he  died  a  natural  death)  to  that  place 

I.  12.] 



and  especially  Paul  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Gala- 

tians.4   They  say  that  Sosthenes  also,  who  wrote  to 

the  Corinthians  with  Paul,  was  one  of  them/' 

2  This  is  the  account  of  Clement  °  in  the  fifth 
book  of  his  Hypotyposes,  in  which  he  also 

says  that  Cephas  was  one  of  the  seventy  disciples,7 

a  man  who  bore  the  same  name  as  the  apostle 

Peter,  and  the  one  concerning  whom  Paul  says, 

"When   Cephas  came  to  Antioch  I  with- 

3  stood  him  to  his  face."H     Matthias,"  also, 
who  was  numbered  with  the  apostles  in  the 

place  of  Judas,  and  the  one  who  was  honored 
by  being  made  a  candidate  with  him,1"  are  like- 
wise said  to  have  been  deemed  worthy  of  the  same 
calling  with  the  seventy.  They  say  that  Thad- 
deus  n  also  was  one  of  them,  concerning  whom 
I  shall  presently  relate  an  account  which  has 
come  down  to  us.1-  And  upon'  examination 
you  will  find  that  our  Saviour  had  more  than 
seventy  disciples,  according  to  the  testimony  of 
Paul,  who  says  that  after  his  resurrection  from 
the  dead  he  appeared  first  to  Cephas,  then  to  the 
twelve,  and  after  them  to  above  five  hundred 
brethren  at  once,  of  whom  some  had  fallen 
asleep  ; I3  but  the  majority  were  still  living 

4  at  the  time  he  wrote.     Afterwards  he  says 
he  appeared  unto  James,  who  was  one  of 

the   so-called    brethren   of  the   Saviour.14     But, 

4  Gal.  ii.  i,  9,  and  13. 

•"•  Sosthenes  is  mentioned  in  i  Cor.  i.  i.  From  what  source  Euse- 
bius  drew  this  report  in  regard  to  him  I  cannot  tell.  He  is  the  first 
to  mention  it,  so  far  as  I  "know.  A  later  tradition  reports  that  he 
became  Bishop  of  Colophon,  a  city  in  Ionia.  A  Sosthenes  is  men- 
tioned also  in  Acts  xviii.  17,  as  ruler  of  the  Jewish  synagogue  in 
Corinth.  Some  wish  to  identify  the  two,  supposing  the  hitter  to 
have  been  afterward  converted,  but  in  this  case  of  course  he  cannot 
have  been  one  of  the  Seventy.  Eusebius'  tradition  is  one  in  regard 
to  whose  value  we  can  form  no  opinion. 

''•  On  Clement  and  his  works  see  Bk.  V.  chap,  u,  note  i,  and 
Bk.  VI.  chap.  13. 

7  Clement  is,  so  far  as  I  know,  the  first  to  make  this  distinction 
between  Peter  the  Apostle,  and  Cephas,  one  of  the  Seventy.  The 
reason  for  the  invention  of  a  second  Peter  in  the  post-apostolic  age 
is  easy  to  understand  as  resulting  from  the  desire  to  do  away  with 
the  conflict  between  two  apostles.  This  Cephas  appears  frequently 
in  later  traditions  and  is  commemorated  in  the  Menology  of  Basil 
on  December  9,  and  in  the  Armenian  calendar  on  September  25.  In 
the  Ecclesiastical  Canons  he  is  made  one  of  the  twelve  apostles, 
and  distinguished  from  Peter.  8  Gal.  ii.  n. 

'•>  We  learn  from  Acts  i.  21  sqq.  that  Matthias  was  a  follower  of 
Christ  throughout  his  ministry,  and  therefore  the  tradition,  which 
Eusebius  is,  so  far  as  we  know,  the  first  to  record,  is  not  at  all  im- 
probable. Epiphanius  (at  the  close  of  the  first  book  of  his  Heer., 
Dindorf'sed.  I.  p.  337)  a  half-century  later  records  the  same  tradition. 
Nicephorus  Callistus  (II.  40)  says  that  he  labored  and  suffered  mar- 
tyrdom in  Ethiopia  (probably  meaning  Caucasian  Ethiopia,  east  of  the 
Black  Sea).  Upon  the  Gospel  flf  Matthias  see  below,  III.  25, note  30. 

10  Joseph  Barsabas,  surnamed  Justus.     He,  too,  had  been  with 
Christ  from  the  beginning,  and  therefore  may  well  have  been  one  ol 
the  Seventy,  as   Eusebius   reports.     Papias  (quoted  by  Eusebius, 
III.  39,  below)  calls  him  Justus  Barsabas,  and  relates  that  he  drank 
a  deadly  poison  without  experiencing  any  injury. 

11  From  a  comparison  of  the  different  lists  of  apostles  given  by 
Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke,  Thaddeus  is  seen  to  be  one  of  the  Twelve 
apparently  identical  with  Jude  and  Lebbanis  (compare  Jerome,  /, 
Matt.  X.).     Eusebius  here  sunders  him  from  the  apostles  and  make 
him  one  of  the  Seventy,  committing  an  error  similar  to  that  which 
arose  in  the  case  of  Peter  and  Cephas.     He  perhaps  records  only  ai 
oral  tradition,  as  he  uses  the  word  <£aoi.     He  is,  so  far  as  is  known 
the  first  to  mention  the  tradition. 

12  See  the  next  chapter.  ™  See  i  Cor.  xv.  5-7. 

W  The  relationship  of  James  and  Jesus  has  always  been  a  dis- 

smce  in  addition  to  these,  there  were  many 
others  who  were  called  apostles,  in  imitation  of 
the  Twelve,  as  was  Paul  himself,  he  adds  : 
\fterward  he  appeared  to  all  the  apostles."  }r> 
So  much  in  regard  to  these  persons.  But  the 
story  concerning  Thaddeus  is  as  follows. 

puted    matter.     Three    theories    ha 
idely  represented. 

The  first  is  the  full-brother  hypothesis,  according  to  which  the 
brothers  and  sisters  of  Jesus  were  children  of  both  Joseph  and  Mary. 
This  was  advocated  strongly  by  the  heretic  Helvidius  in  Koine  in 
380,  and  is  widely  accepted  in  the  Protestant  Church.  The  only 
serious  objection  to  it  is  the  committal  of  Mary  to  the  care  of  John 
by  Christ  upon  the  cross.  Hut  John  was  at  any  rate  an  own  con.- in 
of  Jesus,  and  the  objection  loses  its  weight  when  we  reali/e  the 
spiritual  sympathy  which  existed  between  Jesus  and  John,  and  llie 
lack  of  belief  exhibited  by  his  own  brothers.  The  second  is  the  half- 
brother  hypothesis,  which  regards  the  brethren  and  sisters  of  Jesus 
as  children  of  Joseph  by  a  former  wife.  This  has  the  oldest  tradi- 
tion in  its  favor  (though  the  tradition  for  none  of  the  theories  is  old 
or  universal  enough  to  be  of  great  weight),  the  apocryphal  C,V.v/,7 
of  James,  chap,  ix.,  recording  that  Joseph  was  a  widower  and  had 
children  before  marrying  Mary.  It  is  still  the  established  theory  in 
the  Greek  Church.  The  greatest  objection  to  it  is  that  if  it  be  true, 
Christ,  as  a  younger  son  of  Joseph,  could  not  have  been  regarded 
as  the  heir  to  the  throne  of  David.  That  the  objection  is  absolutely 
fatal  cannot  be  asserted,  for  it  is  nowhere  clearly  stated  that  he  was 
the  heir-apparent  to  the  throne;  it  is  said  only  that  he  was  of  the 
line  of  David.  Both  of  these  theories  agree  in  distinguishing  James, 
the  brother  of  the  Lord,  from  James,  the  son  of  Alphajus,  the 
apostle,  and  thus  assume  at  least  three  Jameses  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament. Over  against  both  of  them  is  to  be  mentioned  a  third, 
which  assumes  only  two  Jameses,  regarding  the  brethren  of  the  Lord 
as  his  cousins,  and  identifying  them  with  the  sons  of  Alphajus. 
This  theory  originated  with  Jerome  in  383  A.o.  with  the  confessedly- 
dogmatic  object  of  preserving  the  virginity  both  of  Mary  and  of 
Joseph  in  opposition  to  Helvidius.  Since  his  time  it  has  been  the 
established  theory  in  the  Latin  Church,  and  is  advocated  also  by 
many  Protestant  scholars.  The  original  and  common  form  of  the 
theory  makes  Jesus  and  James  maternal  cousins:  finding  only  three 
women  in  John  xix.  25,  and  regarding  Mary,  the  wife  of  Clopas,  as 
the  sister  of  the  Virgin  Mary.  But  this  is  in  itself  improbable  and 
rests  upon  poor  exegesis.  It  is  far  better  to  assume  that  four  women 
are  mentioned  in  this  passage.  A  second  form  of  the  cousin  theory, 
which  regards  Jesus  and  James  as  paternal  cousins  —  making  Al- 
pructis  (Clopas)  the  brother  of  Joseph  —  originated  with  Lange. 
It  is  very  ingenious,  and  urges  in  its  support  the  authority  of 
Hegesippus,  who,  according  to  Eusebius  (//.  /'..  III.  n),  says 
Clopas  was  the  brother  of  Joseph  and  the  father  of  Simeon,  which 
would  make  the  latter  the  brother  of  James,  and  thus  just  as  truly 
the  brother  of  the  Lord  as  he.  Rut  Hegesippus  plainly  thinks  of 
James  and  of  Simeon  as  standing  in  different  relations  to  Christ,— 
the  former  his  brother,  the  latter  his  cousin,  —  and  therefore  his 
testimony  is  against,  rather  than  for  Lange's  hypothesis.  The  state- 
ment of  Hegesippus,  indeed,  expresses  the  consulship  of  Christ  with 
James  the  Little,  the  son  of  Clopas  (if  Alphajus  and  Clopas  be  iden- 
tified), but  does  not  identify  this  cousin  with  James  the  brother  of 
the  Lord.  Eusebius  also  is  claimed  by  Lange  as  a  witness  to  his 
theory,  but  his  exegesis  of  the  passage  to  which  he  appeals  is  poor 
(see  below,  Bk.  IV.  chap.  22,  note  4).  Against  both  forms  of  the 

brothers  were  apostles.  From  this  fatal  objection  both  of  the 
brother  hypotheses  are  free,  and  either  of  them  is  possible,  but  tin 
former  rests  upon  a  more  natural  interpretation  of  the  various  pa 
sages  involved,  and  would  perhaps  have  been  universally  accepted 
had  it  not  been  for  the  dogmatic  interest  felt  by  the  early  Church  IM 
preserving  the  virginity  of  Mary.  Renan's  complicated  theory  (see 
his  Les  J-^ati^iles,  p.  537  sqq.)  does  not  help  matters  at  all,  and 
need  not  be  discussed  here.  There  is  much  to  be  said,  however,  in 
favor  of  the  separation  of  Alphajus  and  Clopas,  upon  which  he 
insists  and  which  involves  the  existence  of  four  Jameses  instead  of 
only  three. 

For  3.  fuller  discussion  of  this  whole  subject,  see  Andrews  (Life, 
of  our  Lord,  pp.  104-116),  Schaff  (Church  Hist.  I.  272-275),  and 
Weiss  (Einleitutig  in  das  A*'.  T.  p.  388  sqq.) ,  all  of  whom  defend  the 
natural  brother  hypothesis;  Lightfoot  (Excursus  upon  "  The  Bretn- 
ren  of  the  Lord "  in  his  Commentary  on  Galatians,  2d  ed.  p. 
247-282),  who  is  the  strongest  advocate  of  the  half-brother  theory; 
Mill  (The  Accounts  of  our  Lord's  Brethren  in  the  N.  T. 
vindicated,  Cambridge,  1843),  wno  maintains  the  maternal  cousin 
theory;  and  Lange  (in  Herzo.f),  who  presents  the  paternal  cousin 
hypothesis.  Compare  finally  Holtzmann's  article  in  the  Zeitschrift 
fiir  \Viss.  Theologie,  1880,  p.  198  sqq. 

15  i  Cor.  xv.  7. 





Xarrative  concerning  the   Prince   of  the    E<fes- 

1  THF.    divinity    of  our    Lord    and    Saviour 
Jesus  Christ  being  noised  abroad  among  all 

men  on  account  of  his   \von<lcr- working  power, 

he    attracted    countless    numbers    from    foreign 

countries  lying  faraway  from  Judea,  who  had  the 

hope  of  being   cured   of  their   diseases  and 

2  ot  all  kinds    of    sufferings.        For   instance, 
the    King   Abgarus,1    who    ruled  with,   great 

glory  the  nations  beyond  the  Euphrates,  being 
afflicted  with  a  terrible  disease  which  it  was  be- 
yond the  power  of  human  skill  to  cure,  when  he 
heard  of  the  name  of  Jesus,  and  of  his  mira- 
cles, which  were  attested  by  all  with  one  accord, 
sent  a  message  to  him  by  a  courier  and 

3  begged    him    to   heal  his   disease.      liut   In 
did  not    at    that   time  comply  with   his  re 

quest  ;   yet  he  deemed  him  worthy  of  a  persona 

letter  in  which  he  said  that  he  would  send  oiu 

of  his  disciples  to  cure   his   disease,  and  at  the 

same    time    promised    salvation    to    himsel 

4  and  all   his  house.     Not  long  afterward   his 
promise  was  fulfilled.      For  after  his  resur- 
rection from  the  dead  and  his  ascent  into  heaven, 
Thomas,-    one    of    the    twelve    apostles,    under 
divine    impulse    sent    Thaddeus,   who    was  also 
numbered  among  the  seventy  disciples  of  Christ; 
to  Edessa,4  as  a  preacher  and  evangelist  of  the 
teaching   of  Christ.       And  all  that  our  Saviour 

had    promised     received    through    him    its 

5  fulfillment.     You  have  written  evidence  of 
these   things   taken    from    the    archives    of 

Edessa/'  which  was  at  that   time   a   royal   city. 

For  in  the  public  registers  there,  which  contain 
accounts  of  ancient  times  and  the  acts  of  Abgarus, 
these  things  have  been  found  preserved  down  to 
the  present  time,  liut  there  is  no  better  way 
than  to  hear  the  epistles  themselves  which  we 
have  taken  from  the  archives  and  have  literally 
translated  from  the  Syriac  language i:  in  the  fol- 
lowing manner. 

Copy  of  an  epistle  written  by  A/>^rus  the  nilet 

to  Jesus,  a//,/  sent  /,<  him  at  Jerusalem  l>\  Ana- 

nias' the  sivift  courier. 

1  Abgarus  was  the  name  of  several  kings  of  Kdcssa,  who  reigned 
at  various  periods  from  B.C.  99  to  A.D.  217.  The  Abgar  contempo- 
rary with  Christ  was  called  Abgar  Ucomo,  or  "  the  Black."  He  was 
the  fifteenth  king,  and  reigned,  according  to  Gutschmid  from 
A.I).  13  to  A. n.  50.  A  great  many  ecclesiastical  fictions  have  grown 
up  around  his  name,  the  story,  contained  in  its  simplest  form  in  the 
present  chapter,  being  embellished  with  many  marvelous  additions 

Christian  Abgar,  King  of  Kdessa,  at  whose  court  I'.ardesanes  '  the 
Syrian  Gnostic,  enjoyed  high  favor,  and  it  is  certain  that  Christian- 
ity had  found  a  foothold  in  this  region  at  a  much  earlier  period 
Soon  after  the  time  of  this  Abgar  the  pretended  correspondence  was 
very  likely  forged,  and  foisted  back  upon  the  Abgar  who  was  con 
le:np  >r.iry  with  Christ.  Compare  Cureton's  A,,r.  Syriac  Av«- 
Htfats  relative  to  the  Earliest  KstaHishment  of  Christianity  in 
Edessa,  London,  1864. 

;•  On  the  traditions  in   regard  to  Thomas,  see  Bk.  Ill    ,  hap  , 

3  See  chap.  12,  note  1 1. 

riginal  home,  Ur  of  the  Chaldees.      In  the  his  or^ 

,  aees.        n       e      s  or 

of  the  Christian  Church  it  played  an  important  part  as  a  centre  of 
Syrian  learning.  Ephracm,  the  Syrian,  founded  a  seminary  there 
in  the  fourth  century,  which  after  his  death  fell  into  the  hands  of  the 


r'  We  have  no  reason  to  doubt  that  Kiisebins,  who  is  the  first  to 
mention  these  apocryphal  epistles,  really  found  them  in  the  public 
archives  at  Kdessa.  Moses  Chorenensis,  the  celebrated  Armenian 
historian  of  the  fifth  century,  who  studied  a  long  time  in  Kdessa  is 
an  independent  witness*  to  their  existence  in  the  Kdes>ene  archives. 
Kusebms  has  been  accused  of  forging  this  correspondence  himself; 

;' Abgarus,  ruler  of  Fdessa,  to  Jesus  the        6 
excellent  Saviour  who  has  appeared  in  the 
country  of  Jerusalem,  greeting.     I  have  heard  the 
reports  of  th^e  and  of  thy  cures  as  performed  by 
thce  without  medicines  or  herbs.      For  it  is  said 
that  thou  makest  the  blind  to  see  and  the  lame  to 
walk,  that  thou  cleansest  lepers  and  easiest  out 
impure  spirits  and  demons,  and  that  thou  healest 
those  afflicted   with    lingering  disease,  and 
raisest   the    dead.       And    having    heard    all        1 
these  things  concerning  thee,  ]'   have   con- 
cluded that   one   of   two    things   must   be    true  : 
either   thou    art    God,  and    having   come    down 
from    heaven   thou   doest   these   things,  or   else 
thou,  who   doest    these   things,  art  the  Son 
of  God.s     I  have  therefore  written  to  thee       8 
to   ask   thee   that   thou   wouldest   take   the 
trouble   to   come   to   me   and    heal   the   disease 
which  I  have.      For  I  have  heard  that  the  Jews 
are  murmuring  against  thee  and  are  plotting  to 
injure  thee.     Hut  1  have  a  very  small  yet  noble 
-ity  which  is  great  enough  for  us  both." 

but  this  unworthy  suspicion  has  been   refuted  by  the  discovery  and 

bun  to  be  genuine.     His  critical  insight,  but  not  his  honesty,  was  at 
fault       The  apocryphal  letters  is  no  longer  a  mat- 

ter ,,f  dispute    though  Cave  and  Grabe  defended  their  genuineness 

low  of  no  one  else  who  values  his  critical  reputation  so  lit'tle  as  to 

''  Eusebius  does  not  say  directly  that  he  translated  these  do 

certainly;    but  the  documents  must  have  been  in  Syriac  in  the  Ede.s- 

sene  archives,  and  Eusebius'  words  imply  that,  if  he  did  not  trans- 
ate  them  himself,  he  at  least  employed  some  one  else  to  do  it.  At 
he  end  of  this  chapter  he  again  uses  an  indefinite  expression,  where 
icrhaps  it  might  be  expected  that  he  would  tell  us  directly  if  he  had 
limself  translated  the  documents. 

1  In  the  greatly  embellished  narrative  of  Cedrcnus  (Hist.  Com- 

fieniiiitni,  p.  176;  according  to  Wright,  in  his  article  on  Abgar  in 
he  nict.  of  Christian  Hiog.)  this  Ananias  is  represented  as  an 
vtist  who  endeavored  to  take  the  portrait  of  C.'hrist,  but  was  dazzled 
y  the  splendor  of  his  countenance:  whereupon  Christ,  having 
•ashed  his  face,  wiped  it  with  a  towel,  which  miraculously  retained 
n  image  of  his  features.  The  picture  thus  secured  was  carried  back 

o  Kdessa,  and  acted  as  a  charm  for  the  preservation  of  the  city 
gainst  its  enemies.  The  marvelous  fortunes  of  the  miraculous  pic- 
nre  are  traced  by  Cedrenus  through  some  centuries  (see  also  Eva- 

;rius,  //.  /•'.  IV.  -..7). 

•"  The  expression  "  Son  of  God  "  could  not  be  used  by  a  heathen 
rince  as  it  is  used  here. 

i.  I 



The  answer  of  Jesus  to  the  ruler  Abgarus  by  the 
courier  Ananias. 

9  "  Blessed  art  thou  who  hast  believed  in 
me   without    having   seen    me.'1'       For   it   is 

written  concerning  me,  that  they  who  have  seen 
me  will  not  believe  in  me,  and  that  they  who 
have:  not  seen  me  will  believe  and  be  saved.1" 
But  in  regard  to  what  thou  hast  written  me,  that 
I  should  come  to  thee,  it  is  necessary  for  me  to 
fulfill  all  things  here  for  which  I  have  been  sent, 
and  after  I  have  fulfilled  them  thus  to  be  taken 
up  again  to  him  that  sent  me.  But  after  I  have 
been  taken  up  I  will  send  to  thee  one  of  my 
disciples,  that  he  may  heal  thy  disease  and  give 
life  to  thee  and  thine." 

10  To   these   epistles   there  was   added   the 
following  account  in   the   Syriac   language. 

"After  the  ascension  of  Jesus,  Judas,11  who  was 
also  called  Thomas,  sent  to  him  Thaddeus,  an 
apostle,'-  one  of  the  Seventy.  When  he  was 
come  he  lodged  with  Tobias, 1;!  the  son  of  Tobias. 
When  the  report  of  him  got  abroad,  it  was  told 
Abgarus  that  an  apostle  of  Jesus  was  come, 

11  as  he   had  written  him.     Thaddeus  began 
then  in   the  power  of  God   to  heal  every 

disease  and  infirmity,  insomuch  that  all  wondered. 
And  when  Abgarus  heard  of  the  great  and  won- 
derful things  which  he  did  and  of  the  cures  which 
he  performed,  he  began  to  suspect  that  he  was 
the  one  of  whom  Jesus  had  written  him,  saying, 

'•'  Compare  John  xx.  29. 

111  7  -Ypan-Ta.i,  as  used  by  Christ  and  his  disciples,  always  referred 
to  the  i  >ld  Testament.  The  passage  quoted  here  dues  not  occur  in 
the  Old  Testament:  but  compare  Tsa.  vi.  ij,  Jer.  v.  21,  and  Kzek.  xii. 
2;  ami  also  Matt.  xiii.  14,  Mark  iv.  12,  and  especially  Acts  .\.\viii. 
26-28  .iml  Rom.  xi.  i  sij. 

11  Thomas  is  not  commonly  known  by  the  name  of  Judas,  and  it 
is  possible  that  Kusebius,  or  the  translator  of  the  document,  made  a 
mistake,  and  applied  to  Thomas  a  name  which  in  the  original  was 
given  to  Thaddeus.  Hut  Thomas  is  called  (udas  Thomas  in  tin: 
Apocryphal  Acts  of  Thomas,  and  in  the  Syriac  It.^triiui  Apcsto- 
li>rn:ii,  published  by  Cure-ton. 

'-  The  word  "apostle"  is  by  no  means  confined  to  the  twelve 
apostles  of  Christ.  The  term  was  used  very  commonly  in  a  much 
wider  sense,  and  yet  the  combination,  "  the  apostle,  one  of  the 
Seventy,"  in  this  passage,  does  not  seem  natural,  anil  we  can- 
not avoid  the  conclusion  that  the  original  author  of  this  account 
did  not  thus  describe  Thaddeus.  The  designation,  "one  of  the 
Seventy,"  carries  the  mind  back  to  Christ's  own  appointment  of 
them,  recorded  by  I, like,  and  the  term  "  apostle,"  used  in  the 
same  connection,  would  naturally  denote  one  of  the  Twelve  ap- 
pointed by  Christ, -—that  is,  an  apostle  in  the  narrow  It 
might  he  suggested  as  possible  that  the  original  Syriac  connected 
the  word  "apostle"  with  Thomas,  reading,  "Thomas  the  apostle 
sent  Judas,  who  is  also  called  Thaddeus,  one  of  the  Seventy,"  <ic. 
Such  a  happy  confusion  is  not  beyond  the  power  of  an  ancient 
translator,  for  most  of  whom  little  can  be  said  in  the  way  of  praise. 
That  this  can  have  been  the  case  in  the  present  instance,  however, 
is  rendered  extremely  improbable  by  the  fact  that  throughout  this 
account  Tli.iddeus  is  called  an  apostle,  and  we  should  therefore  ex- 
pect the  designation  upon  the  first  mention  of  him.  It  seems  to  me 
much  more  probable  that  the  words,  "  one  of  the  Seventy,"  are  an 
addition  of  Kusebius,  who  has  already,  in  two  places  (§  4,  above, 
and  chap,  is,  §  3),  told  us  that  Thaddens  was  one  of  them.  It  is 
probable  that  the  original  Syriac  preserved  the  correct  tradition  of 
Thaddeus  as  one  of  the  Twelve;  while  Kusebius,  with  his  false  tra- 
dition of  him  as  one  of  the  Seventy,  takes  pains  to  characterize  him 
as  such,  when  he  is  first  introduced,  but  allows  the  word  "  apostle," 
so  common  in  its  wider  sense,  to  stand  throughout.  He  does  not 
intend  to  correct  the  Syriac  original;  he  simply  defines  Thaddeus, 
as  he  understands  him,  more  closely. 

1:1  Tobias  was  very  likely  a  Jew,  or  of  Jewish  extraction,  the 
name  being  a  familiar  one  among  the  Hebrews.  This  might  have 
been  the  reason  that  Thaddeus  (if  he  went  to  Edessa  at  all)  made 
his  home  with  him. 

'After  I  have  been  taken  up  I  will  send  to  thee 
one    of  my  disciples   who    will    heal    thee.' 
Therefore,  summoning  Tobias,  with  whom      12 
Thaddeus   lodged,   he   said,    I    have   heard 
that  a  certain  man  of  power  has  come  and   is 
lodging  in  thy  house.      Bring  him  to  me.     And 
Tobias  coming  to  Thaddeus  said   to   him,  The 
ruler  Abgarus   summoned   me   and    told   me   to 
bring  thee  to  him  that  thou   mightst  heal   him. 
And  Thaddeus  said,   I  will  go,  for  I    have 
been    sent    to    him    with    power.       Tobias      13 
therefore  arose  early  on  the  following  day, 
and    taking  Thaddeus   came   to  Abgarus.     And 
when   he    came,   the    nobles   were    present  and 
stood   about  Abgarus.     And   immediately  upon 
his  entrance  a  great  vision  appeared  to  Abgarus 
in    the   countenance   of   the   apostle   Thaddeus. 
When  Abgarus  saw  it  he  prostrated  himself  be- 
fore Thaddeus,  while  all  those  who  stood  about 
were  astonished  ;   for  they  did  not  see  the 
vision,  which   appeared   to  Abgarus  alone.      14 
He    then    asked   Thaddeus   if   he    were  in 
truth   a   disciple  of  Jesus  the  Son  of  God,  who 
had  said  to  him,  '  I  will  send   thee  one  of  my 
disciples,  who  shall  heal  thee  and  give  thee  life.' 
And  Thaddeus  said,  Because  thou  hast  mightily 
believed  in  him  that  sent  me,  therefore  have  I 
been  sent  unto  thee.     And  still   further,  if  thou 
believest  in  him,  the  petitions  of  thy  heart 
shall  be  granted  thee  as  thou  believest.    And      15 
Abgarus  said  to  him,  So  much  have  I  be- 
lieved in  him  that  I  wished  to  take  an  army  and 
destroy  those  Jews  who  crucified  him,  had  I  not 
been  deterred  from  it  by  reason  of  the  dominion 
of  the  Romans.     And  Thaddeus  said,  Our  Lord 
has  fulfilled  the  will  of  his    Father,  and  having 
fulfilled  it  has  been  taken  up  to  his  Father.    And 
Abgarus  said  to  him.  I  too  have  believed  in 
him  and  in  his  Father.    And  Thaddeus  said      16 
to   him,  Therefore    I   place   my  hand   upon 
thee  in  his  name.      And  when  he  had  done  it, 
immediately  Abgarus  was  cured  of  the  dis- 
ease and  of  the  suffering  which  he  had.    And      17 
Abgarus   marvelled,   that  as   he   had   heard 
concerning   Jesus,  so    he    had    received    in   very 
deed  through  his  disciple  Thaddeus,  who  healed 
him  without  medicines  and  herbs,  and  not  only 
him,  but   also  Abdus  H  the   son  of  Abdus,  who 
was  afflicted  with  the  gout ;  for  he  too  came  to 
him  and   fell  at  his  feet,  and  having  received  a 
benediction  by  the  imposition  of  his  hands,  he 
was   healed.      The   same   Thaddeus   cured   also 
many   other    inhabitants    of   the   city,   and    did 
wonders   and    marvelous   works,    and    preached 

14  Moses  Chorenensis  reads  instead  (according  to  Rinck).  "  T 
grus,  the  son  of  Andas."  Rinck  thinks  it  probable  that  Eusel 
or  the  translator  made  a  mistake,  confusing  the  Syrian  name  F 
grus  with  the  Greek  word  iroSdypa,  "  a  sort  of  gout,"  and  thei 
serting  a  second  Abdas.  The  word  "  Podagra  "  is  Greek  and  o 
not  have  occurred  in  the  Armenian  original,  and  therefore  Eusel 
is  to  be  corrected  at  this  point  by  Moses  Chorenensis  (Rinck,  ibid 
p.  18).  The  Greek  reads  '.\p&ov  rov  rov  \\ftSov  noddy pav  i\ufra. 



[I.  '3- 

18  tin.'  word  of  Ciod.     Anil  afterward  Abgarus 
said,  Thou,  ()  Thaddeus,  doest  these  things 

with  the  power  of (lod,  and  we  marvel.  I  Jut,  in 
addition  to  these  things,  I  pray  thee  to  inform 
me  in  regard  to  the  coming  of  Jesus,  how  he 
was  born  ;  and  in  regard  to  his  power,  by  what 
power  he  performed  those  deeds  of  which 

19  I   have   heard.      And  Thaddcus    said,   Now 
indeed    will    I    keep   silence,    since    I    have 

been  sent  to  proclaim  the  word  publicly,  lint 
to-morrow  assemble  for  me  all  thy  citizens,  and 
I  will  preach  in  their  presence  and  sow  among 
them  the  word  of  Clod,  concerning  the  coming 
ot  Jesus,  how  he  was  born;  and  concerning  his 
mission,  for  what  purpose  he  was  sent  by  the 
Father;  and  concerning  the  power  of  his  works, 
and  the  mysteries  which  he  proclaimed  in  the 
world,  and  by  what  power  he  did  these  tilings; 
and  concerning  his  new  preaching,  and  his 
abasement  and  humiliation,  and  how  he  hum- 
bled himself,  and  died  and  debased  his  divinity 
and  was  crucified,  and  descended  into  Hades,15 

'•"•  This  is  the  earliest  distinct  ami  formal  statement  of 
he  descent  into  II  les;  !>ut  no  special  stress  is  laid  upon  it  as  a 
lew  doctrine,  and  it  is  stated  so  much  as  a  matter  nf  course  as  to 
how  that  it  was  commonly  accepted  at  Kdes-a  at  the  time  of  the 
vritmg  of  these  records,  that  i.s  certainly  as  early  as  the  third  cen- 
ury.  Justin,  Irenajtis,  (.  lenient  of  Alexandria,  Origen,  Tertnllian, 
XC  all  witness  t  >  the  belief  of  the  Church  in  this  doctrine,  though 
t  did  not  form  an  article  in  any  of  the  older  creeds,  and  appeared 'in 
he  first  in  certain  Arian  confessions  at  about  ;6o  A.i>.  Tn  the 
West  it  appeared  first  in  the  Aquileian  creed,  from  which  it  was 
transferred  to  the  Apostles'  creed  in  the  fifth  century  or  later. 

The  doctrine  is  stated  in  a  very  fantastic  shape  in  the  C,»s/>rl  of 
\u-odemus,  part  11.  (Antr-Xicenc  I'.ith,  rs.  Am.  od.  VIII.  p 
435  sq.),  which  is  based  upon  an  apocryphal  gospel  of  the  second 
century,  according  to  Tischend  .rf.  In  it  the  descent  of  (  hrist  into 
Hades  and  his  ascent  with  a  great  multitude  are  dwelt  upon  at 
length.  Compare  Pearson,  On  tke  Creed,  p.  340  sq.;  Schaffs 

and  burst  the  bars  which  from  eternity  had  not 
been  broken,"1  and  raised  the  dead;  for  he  de- 
scended alone,  but  rose  with  many,  and 
thus  ascended  to  his  Father.17  Abgarus  20 
therefore  commanded  the  citizens  to  assem- 
ble early  in  the  morning  to  hear  the  preaching 
of  Thaddeus,  and  afterward  he  ordered  gold  and 
silver  to  be  given  him.  Hut  he  refused  to  take 
it,  saying,  If  we  have  forsaken  that  which  was 
i  our  own,  how  shall  we  take  that  which  is  an- 
other's? These  things  were  done  in  the  three 
hundred  and  fortieth  year."1" 

I  have   inserted   them    here   in   their   proper 
place,  translated  from  the  Syriac  1<J  literally,  and 
I  hope  to  good  purpose. 

Creeds  of  Christendom,  \.  p.  46;  and  especially,  Plumptre's  Spirits 
in  Prison,  p.  77  Sq. 

^'  Compare  the  Gospel  of  Nicodcmus,  II.  5. 

II  /caTtt/iu?  yiip  ^loVos'  o-urr/yttptr  TroAAoi's,  ti6'  oiJTw?  ace/3r)  wpbs 
TO>/  Trartpa  avrov.      Other  MSS.  read  K«Tt/3r)  /u.ui'o«,  (ii'e'/Sr;  Se  fxtTa 
Ti-oAAoi)  oxAoO  rrpos  Tor  Trartpa   avrov.      Rutinus  translates   Oni  dc- 
scendit    quidem    solus,    ascendit     auteni    cunt    grandi    mnlti- 
tudinc  ad  patron  snum.     Compare  the  words  of  Cyril  of  Jerusa- 
lem   (Catech.    IV.    n):    KarijAOfi-    us-   rd   Knra\0in>ia    iva.  KaKfl6ev 
Avrpwo-Tjrai  TO.'.S-  Sixaioi-s,  "  He  descended  into  the  depths,  that  he 
might  ransom  thence  the  just." 

"*  According  to  the  Chronicle  of  Kusebius  (ed.  Schoene,  II. 
1).  116)  the  Edessenes  dated  their  era  from  the  year  of  Abraham 
1706  (B.C.  310),  which  corresponded  with  the  second  year  of  the  one 
hundred  and  seventeenth  Olympiad  (or,  according  to  the  Armenian, 
to  the  third  year  of  the  same  Olympiad),  the  time  when  Selenctis  Xi- 
canor  began  to  rule  in  Syria.  According  to  this  reckoning  the  34oth 
year  of  the  Rdessenes  would  correspond  with  the  year  of  Abraham 
2046,  the  reign  of  Tiberius  16  (A.I).  30) ;  that  is,  the  second  year  of  the 
two  hundred  and  second  Olympiad  (or,  according  to  the  Armenian, 
the  third  year  of  the  same).  According  to  the  Chronicle  of  Kusebius, 
Jesus  was  crucified  in  the  nineteenth  year  of  Tiberius  (year  of  Abra- 
ham 2048  =  A.I).  32) ,  according  to  Jerome's  version  in  the  eighteenth 
year  (year  of  Abraham  2047=  A. u.  3').  Thus,  as  compared  with 
these  authorities,  the  3401)1  year  of  the  Edessenes  falls  too  early. 
But  Tertullian,  Lactantius,  Augustine,  and  others  put  Christ's  death 
in  783  u.c.,  that  is  in  30  A.D.,  and  this  corresponds  with  the  Edessene 
reckoning  as  given  by  Euscbius.  1:l  See  note  6. 

BOOK    II. 


1  \Yi.    have     discussed    in    the     preced'ng 
book  those  subjects  in  ecclesiastical  history 

which  it  was  necessary  to  treat  by  way  of  intro- 
duction, and  have  accompanied  them  with 
brief  proofs.  Such  were  the  divinity  of  the 
saving  Word,  and  the  antiquity  of  the  doctrines 
which  we  teach,  as  well  as  of  that  evangelical 
life  which  is  led  by  Christians,  together  with 
the  events  which  have  taken  place  in  connection 
with  Christ's  recent  appearance,  and  in  con- 
nection, with  his  passion  and  with  the  choice 

2  of  the  apostles.       In  the  present  book  let 
us   examine   the   events   which    took   place 

after  his  ascension,  confirming  some  of  them 
from  the  divine  Scriptures,  and  others  from 
such  writings  as  we  shall  refer  to  from  time 
to  time- 

CHA1TKR    I. 

The.    Course  pursued  by  //if  Apostles  after  the 
Ascension,  of  Chnst. 

1  FIRST,   then,   in    the    place  of  Judas,  the 

betrayer,  Matthias, '  who,  as  has  been 
shown,2  was  also  one  of  the  Seventy,  was 
chosen  to  the  apostolate.  And  there  were  ap- 
pointed to  the  diaconate,"11  for  the  service  of 

'   See  Acts  i.  23-26.  -  Bk.  I.  chap.  12,  §  2. 

-"  The  view  that  the  Seven  were  deacons  appears  first  in  Ire- 
meus  (nt/v,  Hear.  I.  26.  3;  III.  12.  10;  IV.  15.  i),  then  in  Cyprian 
(Ep.  64.  3),  and  was  the  commonly  accepted  opinion  of  the  Roman 
Church  in  the  third  century  (for,  while  they  had  forty-six-  presbyters, 
they  had  only  seven  deacons;  see  below,  Bk.  VI.  chap.  43),  and  has 
been  ever  since  almost  universally  accepted.  In  favor  of  the  identi- 
fication are  urged  this  early  and  unanimous  tradition,  the  similarity 
of  the  duties  assigned  to  the  Seven  and  to  later  deacons,  and  the 
use  of  the  words  SiaKovia  and  Sinxoi't-iV  in  connection  with  the 
"Seven"  in  Acts  vi.  It  must  be  remarked,  however,  that  ancient 
tradition  is  not  unanimously  in  favor  of  the  identification,  for  Chry  s- 
ostom  {Homily  XIV.  on  Acts)  denies  it;  still  further,  the  finu-- 
tions  of  the  Seven  and  of  later  deacons  were  not  identical,  for  the 
former  were  put  in  charge  of  the  financial  affairs  of  the  Jerusalem 
church,  while  the  latter  acted  simply  as  bishops'  assistants.  In  fact, 
it  was  tliM  bishop  of  the  second  century,  not  the  deacon,  that  had 
charge  of  the  church  finances.  And  finally,  no  weight  can  be  laid 
upon  the  use  of  the  terms  ^aKovtlv  and  SiaKui'ia  in  connection  with 
the  Seven,  for  these  words  are  used  always  in  a  general,  never 
in  an  official  sense  in  other  parts  of  the  Acts  and  of  the  New 
Testament,  and,  what  is  still  more  decisive,  the  same  word  (&ia.Koi«.a) 
is  used  in  the  same  passage  in  connection  with  the  apostles;  the 
Seven  are  "to  serve  tables"  (SuiKovtiv  T«.I«  -rpa~.  s"ai<;),  the  apos- 

ing  that  name  to  the  Seven.  On  the  other  hand,  against  the  opinion 
that  the  Seven  were  deacons,  are  to  be  urged  the  facts  that  they 
are  never  called  "  deacons "  by  Luke  or  by  any  other  New  Tes- 
tament writer;  that  we  are  nowhere  told,  in  the  New  Testament 
or  out  of  it,  that  there  were  deacons  in  the  Jerusalem  church 

the  congregation,  by  prayer  and  the  laying  on 
of  the   hands    of   the    apostles,   approved    men, 

although  Luke  had  many  opportunities  to  call  the  Seven  "dea- 
cons" if  he  had  considered  them  such;  and  finally,  that  according 
to  Kpiphanius  (//<i-r.  XXX.  i8),the  Kbionitie  churches  of  Pales- 
tine in  his  time  had  only  presbyters  and  Archisynagogi  (chitjs  of 
the  synagogue} .  These  Kbionitcs  were  tlie  Jcwi*h  Christian  reac- 
maries  who  refused  to  advance  witli  the  Church  catholic  in  its 
ii./rimil  development;  it  is  therefore  at  least  significant  that  there 
were  no  deacons  among  them  in  the  fourth  century. 

In  view  of  these  considerations  I  feel  compelled  to  doubt  the  tradi- 
tional identification,  although  it  is  accepted  without  dissent  by  almost 
all  scholars  (cf.  e.g.  Lightfoot's  article  on  The  Christian  Ministry 
in  his  Commentary  on  rliili'-pitins).  There  remain  but  two  possi- 
bilities: either  the  Seven  constituted  a  merely  temporary  commit- 
tee (as  held  by  Chrysostom,  and  in  modern  times,  among  others, 
by  Vitringa,  in  his  celebrated  work  on  the  Synagogue,  and  by  Stan- 
ley in  his  Essays  on  tin-  Aposto'ic  --/.i,r) ;  or  they  were  the  origi- 
nals of  permanent  officers  in  the  Church,  other  than  deacons.  The 
former  alternative  is  possible,  but  the  emphasis  which  Luke  lays 
upon  the  appointment  is  against  it,  as  also  the  fact  that  the  very  duties 
which  these  men  were  chosen  to  perform  were  siuli  as  would  in- 
crease rather  than  diminish  with  the  growth  of  the  Church,  and  such 
as  would  therefore  demand  the  creation  of  a  new  and  similar  com- 
mittee if  the  old  were  not  continued. 

In  favor  of  the  second  alternative  there  is,  it  si-ems  to  me,  much 
to  be  said.  The  limits  of  this  note  foibid  a  lull  discussion  of  the  sub- 
ject. Hut  it  may  be  urged:  Fir.^t,  that  we  find  in  the  Acts  frequent 
mention  of  a  body  of  men  in  the  Jerusalem  church  known  as  "  elders." 
Of  the  appointment  of  these  elders  we  have  no  account,  and  yet 
it  is  clear  that  they  cannot  have  been  in  existence  when  the  apostles 
proposed  the  appointment  of  the  Seven.  Secondly,  although  the 
Seven  were  such  prominent  and  influential  men,  they  are  not 
once  mentioned  as  a  body  in  the  subsequent  chapters  of  the  Acts, 
while,  whenever  we  should  expect  to  find  them  referred  to  with  the 
apostles,  it  is  always  the  "  eiders  "  that  are  mentioned.  Finally, 
when  the  elders  appear  for  the  first  time  (Acts  xi.  30),  we  find 
them  entrusted  with  the  same  duties  which  the  Seven  were  origi- 
nally appointed  to  perform:  they  receive  the  alms  sent  by  the  church 
of  Antioch.  It  is  certainly,  to  say  the  least,  a  very  natural  conclu- 
sion that  these  "elders"  occupy  the  office  of  whose  institution  we 
read  in  Acts  vi. 

Against  this  identification  of  the  Seven  with  the  elders  of  the 
Jerusalem  church  it  might  be  urged:  First,  that  Luke  docs  not 
call  them  elders.  But  it  is  quite  possible  that  they  were  not  called 
by  that  name  at  first,  and  yet  later  acquired  it;  and  in  that  case,  in 
referring  to  them  in  later  times,  people  would  naturally  call  the  first 
appointed  "  the  Seven,"  to  distinguish  them  from  their  successors, 
"the  elders," — the  well-known  and  frequently  mentioned  officers 
whose  number  may  well  have  been  increased  as  the  church  grew. 
It  is  thus  easier  to  account  for  Luke's  omission  of  the  name  "elder," 
than  it  would  be  to  account  for  his  omission  of  the  name  "  deacon," 
if  they  were  deacons.  In  the  second  place,  it  might  be  objected  that 
the  duties  which  the  Seven  were  appointed  to  perform  were  not 
commensurate  with  those  which  fell  to  the  lot  of  the  elders  as 
known  to  us.  This  objection,  however,  loses  its  weight  when  we  real- 
ize that  the  same  kind  of  a  development  went  on  in  connection  with 
the  bishop,  as  has  been  most  clearly  pointed  out  by  Hatch  in  his  Or- 
i;ani::iition  of  the  Early  Christian  Churches,  and  by  Harnack  in 
'his  translation  of  that  work  and  in  his  edition  of  the  Teaching  of  //•_<• 
Apostles.  Moreover,  in  the  case  of  the  Seven,  who  were  evi- 
dently the  chiefest  men  in  the  Jerusalem  church  after  the  apostles, 
and  at  the  same  time  were  "  full  of  the  Spirit,"  it  was  very  natural 
that,  as  the  apostles  gradually  scattered,  the  successors  of  these 
Seven  should  have  committed  to  them  other  duties  besides  the 
purely  financial  ones. 

The  theory  presented  in  this  note  is  not  a  novel  one.  It  was 
suggested  first  by  Bohmer  (in  his  Diss.  Juris  crr.Vj.),  who  was 
followed  by  Ritschl  (in  his  Entstehung  tier  alt-kath.  Kirche), 
and  has  been  accepted  in  a  somewhat  modified  form  by  Lange  (in 
his  Apostolisches  /.citaltcr} ,  and  by  I.echler  (in  his  Apost.  und 
Nachapost.  Zeitalter).  Before  learning  that  the  theory  had  been 
proposed  by  others,  1  had  myself  adopted  it  and  had  embodied  it  in 
a  more  elaborate  form  in  a  paper  read  before  a  ministerial  associa- 
tion in  the  spring  of  1888.  -My  confidence  in  its  validity  has  of 
course  been  increased  by  the  knowledge  that  it  has  been  maintained 
by  the  eminent  scholars  referred  to  above. 


[II.  I. 

seven  ill  number,  of  whom  Stephen  was  one. 
lie  first,  after  the  Lord,  was  stoned  to  death  a 
(he  time  of  his  ordination  by  the  slayers  of  tilt 
Lord,  as  if  he  had  been  promoted  for  this  ver) 
purpose.'1  And  thus  he  was  the  first  to  receive 
the  crown,  corresponding  to  his  name,1'  whicl 
belongs  to  the  martyrs  of  Christ,  who  are 

2  worthy  of  the  meed  of  victory.    Then  James 
whom    the    ancients    surnamed    the     Just' 

on  account   of  the   excellence   of    his    virtue,   i 
recorded    to    have   been    the    first    to    be    mad 
bishop  of  the  church  of  Jerusalem.      This  Jame 
was  called  the  brother   of  the   Lord7  because  he 
was  known  as  a  son  of  Joseph/  and  Joseph  was 
supposed  to  be  the  father  of  Christ,  because  th 
Virgin,  being  betrothed  to  him,  "was  found  with 
child    by    the    Holy    Chost    before    they    came 
together," '•'   as    the    account    of    the    hoi) 

3  Cospels  shows.      Put  (.'lenient    in   the   sixth 
book    of    his    Hypotyposes1"   writes    thus: 

"  For  they  say  that   Peter  and  James   and    John 

after    the    ascension   of  our    Saviour,   as    if  also 

preferred   by   our    Lord,   strove   not   after   honor, 

but   chose   James   the  Just   bishop   of   Jeru- 

4  salem."11      Hut    the    same    writer,     in'   the 
seventh    book    of   the    same    work,    relates 

also  the  following  things  concerning  him  :  ''The 
Lord  after  his  resurrection  imparted  knowledge 
to  James  the  Just  and  to  John  and  Peter,  and 
they  imparted  it  to  the  rest  of  the  apostles,  and 
the  rest  of  the  apostles  to  the  seventy,  of  whom 
Parnabas  was  one.1-  Hut  there  were  two 
Jameses  :  1;;  one  called  the  lust,  who  was  thrown 

3  See  Acts  vi.  i-C.  '   See  At  ts  vii. 

a  n  'Vu-'.s,  "  :i  frown." 

us  i,  not  called  the"  Just  "  in  the  \,  w  Testament,  but  He»e- 
sippus    (quoted    by    Kusebius,   ch  ••,    that    he    was    called 

tins  by  all  from  the  tune  of  Christ,  on  account  of  his  threat  piety, 
an  i  it  is  by  this  name  that  lie  is  known  throughout  history. 

7   See  above,  l!k.  I.  chap.  12,  n<  >:c  i  ;. 

-  Kusebius' testimony  is  in  fa\  •  of  the  half-brother  theory;  for 
li.i-l  lie  considered  James  the  sou  ,  f  Mary,  lie  omld  not  have  spoken 
in  '')'-  way.  u  _M:(tt.  ;.  ]S. 

Ou  Clement's  Hypotyjoses,  see  15k.  VI.   chap.    13,    note    3 
On  Clement's  life  and  writings,  see  I'.k.  V.  chap.  n. 

11  aAA'  "IriKuiftov  Tuv(>iKa.ioveTri<TKorrovT<av'l<;po<To\viJ.u>v  e\ecrOai 
as  the  majority  of  the  MSS.  and  editions  read.  Kaemmer  followed 
by  Heinichen,  substitutes  y,,^,ri><n  for  f\e<r6ai  on  the  authority  of 
two  important  codices.  The  oilier  reading,  however,  is  as  well,  if 
not  better,  supported. 

How  soon  after  the  ascension  of  Christ,  James  the  Just  assumed 
a  leading  position  in  the  church  of  Jerusalem,  we  do  not  know 
He  undoubtedly  became  prominent  very  soon,  as  Paid  in  37  (or 
\  ,)  \.D.  sees  him  in  addition  to  I'eter  on  visiting  Jerusalem."  liut 
we  do  not  know  of  hi3  having  a  position  of  leadership  until  the 
Jerusalem  Council  in  51  (Acts  xv.  and  C,al.  ii.),  where  he  is  one 
of  the  three  pillars,  standing  at  lea-t  upon  an  equality  in  inlluence 
with  I'eter  and  J  .hn.  I'.ut  this  very  expression  "three  pillars  of 
the  Church  "  •  Oiat  lie  was  bishop  of  the 

Church  in  the  modern  sense  of  the  term  — he  was  only  one  of  the 
rulers  of  the  Church.  I  ml  .  ,.  ;  evidence  from 

other  sources  that  the  in  man  hi,  ,1  episcopacy  was  nowhere  known 
at  that  early  age.  It  was  the  custom  ,,f  all  writers  of  the  second 
century  and  later  to  throw  bark  into  the  apostolic  age  their  own 
church  organization,  and  hence  we  hear  of  bishops  appointed  by 
the  apostles  in  various  churches  where  we  know  that  the  episco- 
pacy was  a  second  century  growth. 

'=  See  above,  Bk.  I.  chap.   12,  note  3. 

1  Clement  evidently  identifies  James,  the  brother  of  the  T  on! 
with  James,  the  son  of  Alphreus  (compare  the  words  just  above- 
Ihese  delivered  it  to  the  rest  of  the  apostles,"  in  which  the  word 
"apostles,"  on  account  of  the  "  Seventy"  just  following,  seems  to 
be  used  in  a  narrow  sense,  and  therefore  this  James  to  be  one  of  the 
I  welve),  and  he  is  thus  cited  as  a  witness  to  the  cousin  hypothesis 
'see  above,  !!k.  I.  chap.  12,  note  13),  Papias,  too,  in  a  fragment 

Irom  the  pinnacle  of  the  temple  and  was  beaten 
to  death  with  a  club  by  a  fuller,14  and  another 
who  was  beheaded."11'     Paul  also  makes  men- 
tion   of  the    same    James    the    Just,    where    he- 
writes,  "Other  of  the  apostles  saw  I  none, 
save  James  the  Lord's  brother."  I<;     At  that        5 
time    also    the    promise    of  our   Saviour  to 
the  king  of  the  Usrhienians  was  fulfilled.      For 
Thomas,  under  a  divine  impulse,  sent  Thaddeus 
to  Kdessa  as  a  preacher  and  evangelist  of  the 
religion    of   Christ,   as    we   have    shown   a  little- 
above   from    the    document    found    there.17 
When    he    came    to    that    place  he   healed        7 
Abgarus  by  the  word  of  Christ;  and  after 
bringing    all    the    people    there    into    the    right 
attitude  of  mind  by  means    of   his  works,  and 
leading  them   to  adore  the  power  of  Christ,  he 
made  them  disciples  of  the  Saviour's  teaching. 
And  from   that    time    down  to  the   present  trie 
whole  city  of  the    Fdessenes  has  been  devoted 
to    the    name    of  Christ,"   offering  no  common 
proof    of  the    beneficence    of  our    Saviour 
toward    them    also.       These     things     have        8 
been    drawn    from    ancient    accounts;    but 
let  us   now  turn  again   to  the    divine   Scripture. 
When    the    first    and    greatest    persecution    was 
instigated   by  the    Jews    against    the  church    of 
Jerusalem  in  connection  with  the  martyrdom  of 
Stephen,  and  when  all  the  disciples,  except  the 
Twelve,   were  scattered    throughout    Judea  and 
Samaria,1'-'    some,  as   the    divine   Scripture  says, 
went  as  far  as  Phtenicia  and  Cyprus  and  Antioch, 
but   could  not  yet  venture  to  impart  the  word 
of    faith    to    the      nations,    and     therefore 
preached   it  to   the    Jews  alone.2"      During        9 
this    time    Paul    was    still    persecuting    the 
church,   and    entering    the    houses   of   believers 
was  dragging    men    and  women  away  and 
:ommitting  them   to   prison."1     Philip  also,      10 
one  of  those  who  with  Stephen  had  been 
entrusted    with     the     diaconate,    being     among 
those  who   were    scattered    abroad,  went  down 
to    Samaria,"   and   being   filled  with    the  divine 
)ower,    he    first    preached  the   word   to    the   in- 
labitants  of  that  country.        And    divine  grace 
vorked  so    mightily  with  him   that  even  Simon 
Magus  with    many  others  was  attracted  by  his 

-•n  by  Konth  (Kel.  Sue.  I.  p.  if,)  identifies  the  two.  Rut 
legesippus  (quoted  by  Kusebius  in  chap.  23)  expressly  states 

t  there  were  many  of  this  name,  and  that  he  was  therefore  called 
ames  the  Just  to  distinguish  him  from  others.  Kusebius  quotes 
us  passage  of  Clement  with  apparently  no  suspicion  that  it  con- 
-adicts  his  own  opinion  in  regard  to  the  relationship  of  James  to 
The  contradiction,  indeed,  appears  only  upon  careful 

11  Josephus  (.-I  tit.  XX.  9.  i)  says  he  was  stoned  to  death.  The 
-count  of  Clement  agrees  with  that  of  Hegesippus  quoted  by  Kuse- 
-•bms  in  chap.  23,  below,  which  see. 

lr'  James,  the  son  of  Xebedcc,  who  was  beheaded  by  Herod 
Vgrippa  1.,  44  A.n.  See  Acts  xii.  2,  and  Bk.  II.  chap,  g,  below. 

'"  f;^l-  i.  19-  1T  See  above,  Bk.  I.  chap.  13. 

'"  The  date  of  the  introduction  of  Christianity  into  Kdessa  is  not 
nown  (see  above,  Bk.  1.  chap.  13,  notes  i  and  3),  but  it  was  the 
-•at  of  a  bishop  in  the  third  century,  and  in  Kusebius'  time  was 
lied  with  magnificent  churches  and  monasteries. 

'•'  See  Acts  viii.  j.  21   See  Acts  viii.  3. 

"  See  Acts  xi.  19.  2=  See  Acts  viii,  5, 

II.  2. 



11  words.""      Simon  was  at   that   time  so  cele- 
brated, and  had  acquired,   by  his  jugglery, 

such  intluence  over  those  who  were  deceived 
by  him,  that  he  was  thought  to  be  the  great 
power  of  God.-1  But  at  this  time,  being 
ama/ed  at  the  wonderful  deeds  wrought  by 
Philip  through  the  divine  power,  he  feigned  and 
counterfeited  faith  in  Christ,  even  going  so 

12  far  as  to  receive   baptism."'     And  what  is 
surprising,  the   same  thing  is  done   even  to 

this  day  by  those  who  follow  his  most  impure 
heresy.-"  Kor  they,  after  the  manner  of  their 
forefather,  slipping  into  the  Church,  like  a 
pestilential  and  leprous  disease  greatly  afflict 
those  into  whom  they  are  able  to  infuse  the 
deadly  and  terrible  poison  concealed  in  them- 
selves.-7 The  most  of  these  have  been  expelled  ^ 
as  soon  as  they  have  been  caught  in  their 
wickedness,  as  Simon  himself,  when  detected  by 
Peter,  received  the  merited  punishment.-" 

13  But    as    the    preaching   of  the    Saviour's 
Gospel  was  daily  advancing,  a  certain  provi- 
dence  led  from  the  land  of  the    Ethiopians  an 
officer  of  the  queen  of  that  country,-"-'  for  Ethi- 
opia even   to  the   present  day  is  ruled,  accord- 
ing   to    ancestral    custom,    by    a    woman.     He, 
first  among  the  Gentiles,  received  of  the  mys- 
teries   of  the    divine  word  from   Philip  in   con- 
sequence  of   a  revelation,  and    having    become 
the     first-fruits     of     believers      throughout     the 
world,   he    is    said    to    have    been    the    first    on 
returning  to  his   country  to  proclaim  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  God  of  the  universe   and  the  life- 

giving  sojourn  of  our  Saviour  among  men;"" 
so  that  through  him  in  truth  the  prophecy 
obtained  its  fulfillment,  which  declares  that 
"  Ethiopia  stretcheth  out  her  hand  unto 
God."'1  In  addition  to  these,  Paul,  that  14 
"chosen  vessel,"'  "not  of  men  neither 
through  men,  but  by  the  revelation  of  Jesus 
Christ  himself  and  'of  God  the  Father  who 
raised  him  from  the  dead,"  :';  was  appointed  an 
apostle,  being  made  worthy  of  the  call  by  a 
vision  and  by  a  voice  which  was  uttered  in  a 
revelation  iron!  heaven."1 

23   See  Acts  viii.  9  sqq.      Upon  Simon,  see  ch:>]>.  13,  i".)tc  3- 
-•'   Tiji'  /.it-yaAi/i'  itvi'iifjuv  TOV  0«>v.     Compare  Acls  vui.  10,  which 
has  .'(   Sm'rtM'S  Tc.G   0«>G   i)   KaA<>i',«V'J    M,7aA-,,.     According  to   tre- 
iKcus    (I.  23.  i)    lie  was  culled  "  the  loftiest  of  all  powers,   i.e.   the 
one  who  is  father  over  all  things"  (sublissimam  virttitttn,hoc  est , 
film  iiui  sit  nupcr  oiniiia    I'ntcr};    according   to  Justin   Martyr, 
•//W.   I.   26   (see  below,  chap.   13),  TO,'  T^'arov  Htm*;   according  to 
the  Clementine  Iloiiiili,-*  (11.  22)  he  wished  to  be  called  "  a  certa; 
supreme  power  of  God"  (avtardrr)  TIS-  <W«fiiv)-     According  to  ta 
Clementine  Recognitions  (IT.  7)  he  was  called  the  "  Standing  one 

-•-'  Eusebius  here  utters  the  universal  belief  of  the  early  Church, 
which  from  the  subsequent  career  of  Simon,  who  was  considered  the 
founder  of  all  heresies,  and  the  great  arch-heretic  himself,  read  back 
into  his  very  conversion  the  hypocrisy  for  which  he  was  afterward 
distinguished  in  Church  history.  The  account  of  the  Acts  does  not 
say  that  his  belief  was  hypocritical,  and  leaves  it  to  be  implied  (if  it 
be  implied  at  all)  only  from  his  subsequent  conduct  in  endeavoring 
to  purchase  the  gift  of  God  with  money. 

-ci  Eusebius  may  refer  here  to  the  Simonians,  an  heretical  sect 
(mentioned  by  Justin,  I remuus,  Clement  of  Alexandria,  and  others), 
which  recognized  him  as  its  founder  and  leader  (though  they  origi- 
nated probably  at  a  later  date),  and  even  looked  upon  him  as  a  God. 
They  were  exceedingly  licentious  and  immoral.  '1  heir  teachings 
gradually  assumed  a  decidedly  Gnostic  character,  and  Simon  came 
to  be  looked  upon  as  the  father  of  all  Gnostics  (compare  Irenxus, 
I  27.  4)  and  hence  of  heretics  in  general,  and  as  himself  the  arch- 
heretic.  Eusebius,  therefore,  perhaps  refers  in  this  place  simply  to 
the  Gnostics,  or  to  the  heretics  in  general. 

--  Another  instance  of  the  external  and  artificial  conception  ot 
heresy  which  Eusebius  held  in  common  with  his  age. 

-"  Acts  viii    tells  of  no   punishment  which  befell  Simon  further 
than   the  rebuke  of  Peter  which  Hippolytus   U'lii.  vi.  15)   calls  a 
curse,  and  which  as  such  may  have  been  regarded  b; 
deserved  punishment,  its  effect  clinging  to  him,  and  finally  bringing 
him  to  destruction  (see  below,  chap.  14,  note  8) 

=»  Acts  viii.  26  sqq.  This  queen  was  Candace,  according  to  the 
Biblical  account;  but  Candace  was  the  name,  not  ot  an  individ 
but  of  a  dynasty  of  queens  who  ruled  in  Men.e,  an  island  formed  by- 
two  branches  of  the  Nile,  south  of  Egypt.  See  Pliny  //  .V.  V  I.  35 
(Dolphin  edition)  ;  Dion  Cassius,  LIV.  5;  and  Strabo,  XVII.  i.  54 
(Muller's  edit.,  Paris,  1877). 

AND  when  the  wonderful  resurrection  and  1 
ascension  of  our  Saviour  were  already  noised 
abroad,  in  accordance  with  an  ancient  custom 
which  prevailed  among  the  rulers  of  the  prov- 
inces, of  reporting  to  the  emperor  the  novel 
occurrences  which  took  place  in  them,  in  order 
that  nothing  might  escape  him,  Pontius  Pilate 
informed  Tiberius1  of  the  reports  which  were 
noised  abroad  through  all  Palestine  concerning 
the  resurrection  of  our  Saviour  Jesus  from 
the  dead.  He  gave  an  account  also  of  2 
other  wonders  which  he  had  learned  of  him, 
and  how,  after  his  death,  having  risen  from  the 
dead,  he  was  now  believed  by  many  to  be  a 
God.-  They  say  that  Tiberius  referred  the 
matter  to  the  Senate/1  but  that  they  rejected  it, 
ostensibly  because  they  had  not  first  examined 
into  the  matter  (for  an  ancient  law  prevailed 

•'">  Iren,xus  (A<tv.  //>>-.  III.  12.  S  s  lys  that  this  Eunuch  re- 
turned  to  Ethiopia  and  preached  there.  But  by  no  one  else,  so  far 
as  I  know,  is  the  origin  of  Christianity  in  Ethiopia  traced  back  to 
him  The  first  certain  knowledge  we  have  of  the  introduction  ol 
Christianity  into  Ethiopia  is  in  the  fourth  century,  under  !•  rumen- 
tins  and  /Edesius,  of  whom  Kulinus,  1  -  y,  gives  the  original  account; 
and  yet  it  is  probable  that  Christianity  existed  there  long  before  this 
•  ime.  Compare  Neamlcr's  Kirchengetchichte,  I.  p.  4°;  .See  also 
11  R.  Reynold--'  article  upon  the  "Ethiopian  Church"  in  Smith 
and  Wace's  Dictionary  of  Christian  biography,  II.  232  sqq. 

-i    I'sa.  xviii.  31.  •-  Acts  ix.  15.  "  Gal.  1.1. 

-i   See   Acts  ix.    3   sqq.;    xxii.   6   sqq.;    xxvi.    I2Sqq.;    Gal.    i.  it. 

i  That  Pilat'e  made  an  official  report  to  Tiberius  is  stated  also  by 
Tcrtullian  (,  !/<>/.  21),  and  is  in   itself  quite  probable, 
tyr  (AM.  1.  35   and  48)   mentions  certain  Acts   of  I'ittiii   as   we 
known  in  his  day,  but   the   so-called  Act*  cf  l^te   which   are   still 
extant  in   various  forms  are   spurious,  and  belong   to   a   much    later 
period.      They  are  very  fanciful  and  curious.      '1  lie   most   important 
of  these    lr//is  that  which  is  commonly  known  under  the  title  of  the 
Gospel  of  Nicodcmus.      There  are   also  extant   numerous   spurious 
epistles  of  Pilate  addressed  to   Herod,  to  Tiberius,  to  Claudius,  &c. 
The  extant  Acts  and  Epistles  are  collected  in  Tischendorf's   '• 

4i6'sqq.     Co'npaie  the  excellent   article  of  Lipsins  upon   the  Ap. 
ryphal  Gospels  in  the    I'ict.  of  Christ.  IHoff.   \\.   p.  707  sqq.,  also 
the  Prolegomena  of  Tischendorf,  p.  Ixu  sqq. 

-  The  existing  Report  of  Pilate  (translated  in   the  Ante-.\  ic, 
l-'athers,  i!>iJ.  p- '460,  46i)answeis  well  to  Eusebius' description,  con- 
taining as  it  does  a  detailed  account  of  Christ's  miracles  and  ol   I 
resurrection.      According  to  Tisrhendorf,  however,  it    is   in    Us  pres- 
ent form  of  a  much  later  date,  but  at   the   same   time   is   very  llkelv 
based  upon  the  form  which  Eusebius  saw,  and  has  been  changed  by 
interpolations  and  additions.     See  the  Prolegomena  of    rise. end 
referred  to  in  the  previous  note.  •>   See  below,  note  12. 


Tin-:  CHURCH   HISTORY  OF  r.rsi<:wus. 


that  no  one  should  be  made  a  (iod  by  the  Ro- 
mans except  by  a  vote  and  decree  of  the  Senate), 
but  in  reality  because  the  saving  teaching  of  the 
divine  Gospel  did  not  need  the  confirmation  and 

recommendation  of  men. 

T.tit  although  the  Senate   of  the    Romans 

rejected  the  proposition  made  in  regard  to 
our  Saviour,  Tiberius  still  retained    the  opinion 

which  he   had  held  at   first,  and  contrived 
4        no  hostile  measures  against  Christ.1     Thes 

tilings  are  recorded  by  Tertullian/'  a  ma 
well  versed  in  the  laws  of  the  Romans,''1  and  i 
other  respects  of  high  repute',  and  one  of  thos 
especially  distinguished  in  Rome.7  In  hi 
apology  lor  the  Christians/  which  was  writ 
ten  by  him  in  the  Latin  language,  and  ha 
been  translated  hit  >  Creek."  he  writes  as  fol 

1  not  persecute  the  Christians   is  a  fact;   bi 
t  no  noiu  e  d  tring  his  rci«i 
:r  them  or  of  his  b  :lief  iii  Christ.  ' 
i  (  'arlhage  about  the  mid. lie  of  the  secon 
itiion  i.s  that  he  was  born   about   160,  b. 
:k  t  .ward  die  beginuin",  of  : 

Tor  a   recent   study  of  the   subject,   se 
'ftfiirivisse  •    Th,;\ 

'es  that    he  \.  mt    150  an 

•  Thai  Tiber! 
this  was  simply  1 
and  not  1  c,  rase  of  his  i 

'->  Tertullian  was  born  i 
century.     The  common  o] 
l.ipsins  pushes  th< 
some  e\en  into  the 
Krnst   N.  ild        en  in  the  /. 
«fie,i&     ,  Heft  2.      lie  c.' 

llv<;'}  until  abotit  230.  Tertullian's  father  was  a  Roman  centurion 
and  he  himself  became  a  lawyer  and  rhetorician  in  K  une  He  wa 
convene,:  to  Christianity  pr  ,bably  beti  ,,(  accord 

'"S ,'°  ,-fferT?'  ,'"-'' ':'::':  •>  Presbyter  and  continued  as  such  unti 
middle  life  (whether  in  Rome  or  in  Carthage  we  cannot  tell;  prob 
ably  in  the  latter,  for  he  certainly  spent  the  later  years  of  his  life 
while  he  was  a  Montanist,  in  Carthage,  and  also  a  considerable  par 
of  Ins  earlier  life,  as  his  writings  indical  ,  when  be  went  over  t, 
Montanism  (probably  .  b  til  =  ,  A.I,.  ,  .  <  ,•;.  ]  :il  nn  advanced  ar, 
(220  ).  Ihathe  was  a  presbyter  rests  only  upon  the  authority  o 
Terome  (de  rir.  ill.  53),  and  is  denied  by  some  Roman  Catholic 
historians  in  the  interest  of  clerical  celibacy,  for  Tertullian  was  .- 
married  man.  lie  wrote  a  great  number  <  f  wort  . 
P"lclmc>  an  :  ,  but  most  of  them  in  C  •',-' 

—  and  many  of  the  Latin  ones  are  slid  extant.  The  best  edition  o 
them  isbyOehler,  I  |umcSi  Vol  III.  c  ,11- 

tains  valuable  dissertations  upon  the  life  and  works  of  Tertullian  b\ 
various  writers.  An  Kn  ;lish  translation  of  his  works  is  given  ir 
the  Antc-Xiccnc.  I'athers,  Vols.  III.  and  IV.  1-125.  Our  main 
sources  for  a  knowledge  of  his  l.fe  are  his  own  writing,  and  Jerome's 
de  rtr.  i.l.  chap.  53.  For  a  fuller  account  of  Tcrlullian,  see  ;.ny  of 
the  larger  Church  histories,  and  especially  a  good  monograph  by 
A.  Hauck,  TcrtHllian's  Lebcn  u,id  S.-kriftc,,,  Krlangen,  1877. 
For  the  literature,  see  Schaff's  Church  Hist.  J  L  p.  SiS. 

C  His  accurate  Acquaintance  with  the  laws  of  the  Romans  is  not 

very  conspicuous  in  his  writings.     His  books  lead  us  to  think  that 

as.'1  '•'  '-  have  been  noted  rather  for  brillin    cy  and  ler 

tihty  of  resource  than  for  erudition.     And  this  i  is  borne 

out  by  his  own  description   of  his   life  before   his  conversion    which 

|y  devoted  to   pleasure,  and   thus   to  have 

•  acquirement  of  extensive  and  accurate  1-arn- 


.     '     ^"'  /"•"'   MaA'cTTa   in     i\.j/a.j)s   Aaji-pioi'.       Rufinus   translates 

inter  nostros  Scriptor,  s  celeberrimus,  and  Valcsius  inter  Latinos 

enftores  celeberritnn    .  takings™  •pM/x>/5  to  mean  the  Latin  lan- 

'      '"!t  thls  'S  "    '•  tl  "  literal  translation  of  the  words  of  Kuse- 

buis.     lie  says  expre     Ij  .  one  of  the  es/.,;/,,!.'v  distinguished  men 

"  R°"lc-  .  trom  his  v.  ,rk  de  cultu  Fcminarum,  Lib.  I.  chap.  7, 
we  know  that  he  ha  1  pent  some  time  in  Rome,  and  his  acquaintance 
with  the  Roman  rec  imply  a  residence  of  some  duration 

there.  He  very  likely  pra.  ti:ed  law  and  rhetoric  in  Rome  until  his 

.  ,?  'i'ertullian's, //.•;-.  ranks  first  among  Ins  extant  works,  and 
is  one  of  the  most  beautiful  monuments  of  the  heroic  a-e  of  the 
Church'^  (SchafTj.  '1  he  date  of  its  composition  is  greatly  dispute  1, 
though  U  must  have  been  written  during  the  reign  of  Septimias 
Severus,  and  almost  all  scholars  are  agreed  in  assigning  it  to  the 
^ars  l'fl.~™*-  ,S"1CC  th(J  1;>vestigationsof  llouwetsch  (/'/,'•  Schriftcn 
rrrtxttian's.BoTin,  i873),  of  Harnack  (in  the  /.eitsclu-ift' r<r 
Kirchengeschichte  iS73,  p.  572  sqq.),  and  of  Xoldechen  (in  Oeb- 
hardt  and  Harnack' s  /V.i  /,•  ,,,,d  Untersnchungen,  Band  V.  Heft  2) 
all  of  whom  agree  in  assigning  its  composition  to  the  latter  part 
(summer  or  fall)  of  the  year  197,  its  date  may  be  accepted  as  prac- 
tically established. 

'•>  Some  have  contended  that  Kusebius  himself  translated  this  iris 
sage  from  Tertullian  but  bis  words  show  clearly  enough  that  he 
quotes  from  an  already  e.Mstmg  translation.  Hi,  kn  ,w ledge  of  the 
Latin  language  appears  to  have  been  very  limited.  He  must  have- 
had  some  acquaintance  with  it,  for  he  translates  Hadrian's  rescript 

••  Uui  in  order  that  we  may  give  an  5 
account  of  these  laws  from  their  origin,  it 
was  an  ancient  decree  u  that  no  one  should  be 
consecrated  a  Cod  by  the  emperor  until  tin- 
Senate  had  expressed  its  approval.  Marcus 
Aurelius  did  thus  concerning  a  certain  idol,  Al- 
burnus.1-  And  this  is  a  point  in  favor  of' our 
doctrine, 1:!  that  among  you  divine  dignity  is  con- 
ferred by  human  decree.  If  a  Cod  does  not 
please  a  man  he  is  not  made  a  God.  Thus, 
according  to  this  custom,  it  is  necessary  for 
man  to  be  gracious  to  God.  Tiberius.  G 
therefore,  under  whom  the  name  of  Christ 
made  its  entry  into  the  world,  when  this  doc- 
trine was  reported  to  him  from  Palestine,  where 
it  first  began,  communicated  with  the  Senate, 
making  it  clear  to  them  that  he  was  pleased 
with^the  doc-trine.14  But  the  Senate,  since  it  had 
not  itself  proved  the  matter,  rejected  it.  lint 
Tiberius  continued  to  hold  his  own  opinion,  and 
threatened  death  to  the  accusers  of  the  Chris- 
tians." Heavenly  providence  had  wisely  in- 
stilled this  into  his  mind  in  order  that  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Gospel,  unhindered  at  its  beginning, 
might  spread  in  all  directions  throughout  the 

to  Fundanus  from  Latin  into  Greek,  as  he  informs  us  in  Bk.  IV. 
chap.  8;  but  the  translation  of  so  brief  and  simple  a  piece  of  writing 
would  not  require  a  profound  knowledge  of  the  lam-uage  and  there 
are  good  reasons  for  concluding  that  he  was  not  a  fluent  Latin  scholar 
lor  instance,  the  only  work  of  Tertulban's  which  he  quotes  is  his 
'..•'.OS  and  he  uses  only  a  Greek  translation  of  that.  It  is  not  un- 

natural to  conclude  that  the  rest  of  Tertullian's  works,  or  at  least 
the  most  of  them,  were  not  translated,  and  that  Eusebius  was  not 
noughof  a  Latin  scholar  to  be  able  to  read  them  in  the  original 
with  any  degree  of  ease.  Moreover,  this  conclusion  in  re-ard  to  his 
cnowledge  of  Latin  is  confirmed  by  the  small  acquaintance  which  he 
snows  with  the  works  of  Latin  writers  in  general.  In  fa.ct,  he  does 
lot  once  betray  a  personal  acquaintance  with  any  of  the  impoitant 
Latin  works  which  had  been  produced  before  his  time,  except  such 

uisebius  himself,  but  the  unknown  translator,  is  to  be  held  respon- 

10  Tertullian's  Apology,  chap.  5. 

1   Haven  amp   remarks   (in  his  edition  of  Tertullian's  Aj-olorv 
•>.  56)  that    this   law   is   stated   in   the  second   book    of   Cicero's  J'e 

L,  ..  'bits  in  the  words:  Scfaratim  m-nto  tiat.-sszt  tit  us  nn-c  novas- 
attic  advcnas  nisip,tblice  adscitos  privatim  (olitntc. 

M«PKOT   AiM/Aios  otW  ,r«pi  T.VOS  ^SMAov  weiroiV"'  'AAflovp- 

.     Latin:    Scit    M.  .l-milius  de   dco  sno  Albur,w.     In"7^ 
larcionem,  I.  18,  Tertullian  says,  Alw./itin   si  sic   lu-mo   Denm 
't"l>iti'r,  quoniodo    Romulus    Consu,,:,   ct    Tatins   Clone i- 
•am,ct  ilosttuus  Payoreni,  ct  Metclliis  Alburnum    ct  ,iuidain 
tcinf'us  Antin.- urn;    hoc  aliis   liccbit ;    nos  Marciencm 
•aucla-Hin  nortmus,  >/,<n  regent,  nee  impcratorcm . 

I  cannot  discover  that  this  eoSojAo?  or  Dens  Alburnus  is  men- 
loned  by  any  other  writer  than  Tertullian,  nor  do  I  find  a  reference 
o  him  in  any  dictionary  accessible  to  me. 

Literally,"  This  has  been  done  in  behalf  of  (or  for  the  sake  of) 
trine  (Kn.i  rovro  v-,'p  r,:v  ,;,„„•  Aoyov  7rt7ron,7fu)  ;  but  the 
nslation  given  in  the  text  better  expresses  the  actual  sense. 

knowledge  from  original  state  records.     The   falsification  took 
lace,  probably,  long  after  the  time  of  Tiberius.     Tertullian  is  the 
ntcr  to  mention  these  circumstances,  and  Tertullian   was  not 

IT.  4-1 




The  Doctrine  <>/  Christ  soon  spread  throughout 
All  the   World. 

1  THUS,  under  the  influence   of  heavenly 
power,  and  with   the    divine    co-operation, 

the  doctrine  of  the  Saviour,  like  the  rays  of  the 
sun,  quickly  illumined  the  whole  world;1  and 
straightway,  in  accordance  with  the  divine  Scrip- 
tures,2 the  voice  of  the  inspired  evangelists  and 
apostles  went  forth  through  all  the  earth,  and 

2  their  words  to  the  end  of  the  world.     In 
every  city  and  village,  churches  were  quickly 

established,  filled  with  multitudes  of  people  like 
a  replenished  threshing-floor.  And  those  whose 
minds,  in  consequence  of  errors  which  had  de- 
scended to  them  from  their  forefathers,  were  fet- 
tered by  the  ancient  disease  of  idolatrous  super- 
stition, were,  by  the  power  of  Christ  operating 
through  the  teaching  and  the  wonderful  works  of 
his  disciples,  set  free,  as  it  were,  from  terrible 
masters,  and  found  a  release  from  the  most  cruel 
bondage.  They  renounced  with  abhorrence  every 
species  of  demoniacal  polytheism,  and  confessed 
that  there  was  only  one  God,  the  creator  of  all 
things,  and  him  they  honored  with  the  rites  of  true 
piety,  through  the  inspired  and  rational  worship 
which  "has  been  planted  by  our  Saviour 
3  among  men.  But  the  divine  grace  being 
now  poured  out  upon  the  rest  of  the  nations, 
Cornelius,  of  Cajsarea  in  Palestine,  with  his 
whole  house,  through  a  divine  revelation  and 
the  agency  of  Peter,  first  received  faith  in 
Christ ; ''  and  after  him  a  multitude  of  other 
Greeks  in  Antioch,4  to  whom  those  who  were 
scattered  by  the  persecution  of  Stephen  ha(~ 
preached  the  Gospel.  When  the  church  of 
Antioch  was  now  increasing  and  abounding,  am 
a  multitude  of  prophets  from  Jerusalem  were  01 
the  ground,6  among  them  Barnabas  and  Paul 
and  in  addition  many  other  brethren,  the  name 
of  Christians  first  sprang  up  there/'  as  fron 

»  Compare  Col.  i.  6.  That  Christianity  had  already  spread  ove 
the  whole  world  at  this  time  is,  of  course,  an  exaggeration;  but  tb 
statement  is  not  a  mere  rhetorical  flourish;  it  was  believed  as  a  his 
torical  fact.  This  conception  arose  originally  out  of  the  idea  tha 
the  second  coming  of  Christ  was  near,  and  the  whole  world  mus 
know  of  him  before  his  coming.  The  tradition  that  the  apostle 
preached  in  all  parts  of  the  world  is  to  be  traced  back  to  the  sam< 

2  Ps.  xix.  4.  3  ^ee  Acts  x.  i  sq. 

4  See  Acts  xi.  20.  The  Textus  Receptus  of  the  New  Testamen 
reads  at  this  point  'EAATjiaaT^;,  a  reading  which  is  strongly  supporte- 
by  external  testimony  and  adopted  by  Westcott  and  Hort.  Hut  th 
internal  evidence  seems  to  demand  "KAAr)»<as,  and  this  reading  i 
found  in  some  of  the  oldest  versions  and  in  a  few  MSS.,  and  i 
adopted  by  most  modern  critics,  including  Tischendorf.  Eusebiv 
is  a  witness  for  the  latter  reading.  He  takes  the  word  "EAAijra?  i 
a  broad  sense  to  indicate  all  that  are  not  Jews,  as  is  clear  from  hi 
insertion  of  the  aAAwv,  "  other  Greeks,"  after  speaking  of  Cornelius 
who  was  not  a  Greek,  but  a  Roman.  Closs  accordingly  translate 
Nichtjiiden,  and  Stigloher  Hciden.  •'  See  Acts  xi.  22  sqq. 

"  See  Acts  xi.  26.  This  name  was  first  given  to  the  disciples  b 
the  heathen  of  Antioch,  not  by  the  Jews,  to  whom  the  word  "  Christ 
meant  too  much;  nor  by  the  disciples  themselves,  for  the  word  se 
dom  appears  in  the  New  Testament,  and  nowhere  in  the  mouth  of 
disciple.  The  word  \pi.<rria.v6<i  has  a  Latin  termination,  but  th 
does  not  prove  that  it  was  invented  by  Romans,  for  Latinisms  wer 

fresh  and  life-giving  fountain.7  And  4 
\gabus,  one  of  the  prophets  who  was  with 
liem,  uttered  a  prophecy  concerning  the  famine 
vhich  was  about  to  take  place,*  and  Paul  and 
iarnabas  were  sent  to  relieve  the  necessities  ot 
he  brethren.'1 


if/er   the   Death  of    Tiberius,   Cains  appointed 

Ayippa  King  of  the  Jeu>s,  having  punished 

Jlerod  until  Perpetual  ILxile. 

iKERirs  died,  after  having  reigned  about  1 
wenty-two  years,1  and  Cains  succeeded  him 
n  the  empire.2  He  immediately  gave  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  Jews  to  Agrippa,:i  making  him 
king  over  the  tetrarchies  of  Philip  and  of  Ly- 
sanias  ;  in  addition  to  which  he  bestowed  upon 
lim,  not  long  afterward,  the  tetrarchy  of  Herod,1 
laving  punished  Herod  (the  one  under  whom 
the  Saviour  suffered'")  and  his  wife  Herodias 
with  perpetual  exile G  on  account  of  numerous 
crimes.  Josephus  is  a  witness  to  these  facts.' 
Under  this  emperor,  Philo s  became  known  ;  2 

common  in  the  Greek  of  that  day.      It  was 
is  a  term  of  contempt,  but  accepted  by  th 

•host  honor. 

'T  in-'  ,  MaAoOs  Kal  yor:,lov  n^y^.  T 
phanus,  Valesius,  Closs,  and  Cruse,  read  -, 
together  with  Rufinus,  support  the  readin 
jy  the  majority  of  editors. 

s  Pee  Acts  xi.  28  Agabus  is  known  to  us  only  from  this  and 
one  other  passage  of  the  Acls  (xxi.  10) ,  where  he  foretells  the  impris- 
onment of  Paul.  The  famine  here  referred  to  took  place  in  the  reign 
of  Claudius,  where  Eusebius  puts  it  when  he  mentions  it  again  in 
chap  3.  He  cannot  therefore  be  accused,  as  many  accuse  him,  ot 
putting  the  famine  itself  into  the  reign  of  Tiberius,  and  hence  of 
committing  a  chronological  error.  He  is  following  the  account  of 
the  Acts,  and  mentions  the  prominent  fact  of  the  famine  in  that 
connection,  without  thinking  of  chronological  order.  His  method 
is,  to  be  sure,  loose,  as  he  does  not  inform  his  readers  that  he  is 
anticipating  by  a  number  of  years,  but  leaves  them  to  discover  it  for 
themselves  when  they  find  the  same  subject  taken  up  again  after  a 
digression  of  four  chapters.  Upon  the  lamme  itself,  see  below, 
chap.  8. 

'•'  See  Acts  xi.  29,  30. 

1  From  Aug.  29,  A.U.  14,  to  March  16,  A.D.  37. 

2  Cains  ruled  from  the  death  of  Tiberius  until  Jan.  24,  A.D.  41. 

3  Herod  Agrippa  1.     He  was  a  son  of  Aristobulus,  and  a  grand- 
son of  Herod  the   Great.     He  was   educated  in  Rome  and  gained 
hi"h  favor  with  Caius,  and  upon  the  latter's  accession  to  the  throne 
received  the  tetrarchies  of  Philip  and  Lysanias,  and  in  A.I).  39  the 
teti  trchy  of  Galilee  and  Perea,  which  had  belonged  to  Herod  Anti- 
pas      After  the  death  of  Caius,  his  successor,  Claudius,  appointed 
him  also  king  over  the  province  of  Judea  and  Samaria,  which  made 
him  ruler  of  all  Palestine,  a  dominion  as  extensive  as  that  of  Herod 
the  Great      He  was  a  strict  observer  of  the  Jewish  law,  and  courted 
the  favor  of  the  Jews  with  success.     It  was  by  him  that  James  the 
Elder  was  beheaded,  and  Peter   imprisoned   (Acts  xn.).      J 

of  a  terrible  disease  in  A.D.  44.     See  below,  chap.  10. 

*  Herod  Antipas.  °  See  Luke  xxm.  7-11. 

'•  He  was  banished  in  A.D.  39  to  Lugdunum  in  Gaul  (according 
to  Josephus,  Ant.  XVIII.  7.  2;  or  to  Spain,  according  to  his  b.  J. 
II.  o.  6),  and  died  in  Spain  (according  to  P.  J.  II.  9-  °>- 

i  See  Ant.  XVIII.  6  and  7,  and  B.  J.  II.  9. 

«  Philo  was  an  Alexandrian  Jew  of  high  family,  who  was 
probably  about  20-10  B.C.   (in  his  Cajinn,  he  calls 
self  an  old  man).      Very  little  is  known  about  his  life,  and  the  tune 
of  his  death  is  uncertain.     The  only  fixed  date  which  we  have  i: 
embassy  to  Caligula   (A.D.  40),  and  he  lived  for  at  least  some 
after  this.     He  is  mentioned  by  Jerome   (de  -.'ir.  ill.  n),  wno 
he  was  born  of  a  priestly  family;  but  Eusebius  knows  nothing 
this,  and  there  is  probably  no  truth  in  the  statement.      1 
tioned  also  by  Josephus  in  his  Ant.  XVIII.  8.  i.     He  was  a  Jew  sh 
philosopher,  thoroughly  imbued  with  the  Greek  spirit,   who 
to   unite   Jewish  beliefs  with  Greek  culture,  and  exerted  inimui 
influence  upon    the    thought    of   subsequent    ages,    especially    upon 
Christian  theology.     His  works   (B.bhcul,  historical,   philosophical, 


!  UK    CMl'KCII     HISTORY    ()!•     KUSKWUS. 

1 1 1.  4. 

;L  man  mo.-,t  celebrated  nut  onlv  among  manv 
of  our  own,  but  also  among  many  scholars  with'- 
out  the  Church.  Ik-  was  a  Hebrew  by  birtli, 
but  was  inferior  to  none  of  those  who  held  high 
dignities  in  Alexandria.  How  exceedingly  he 
labored  in  the  Sri  i]  nd  in  the  studies  of 

is  ration  is  plain  to  all  from  the  work  whii  h  he 
li  is  done.  !  low  familiar  he  was  with  philosophy 
and  with  the  liberal  studies  of  foreign  nations, 
it  is  not  necessary  to  say,  since  he  is  reported 
to  have  surpassed  all  his  contemporaries  in  the 
study  of  Platonic  and  Pythagorean  philosophy, 
'"  which  he  particularly  devoted  his  attention.'1' 

Piiii.ii  has  given  us  an  account,  in  five 
books,  of  the  misfortunes  of  the  |ews  under 
Cams.1  lie  recounts  at  the  same  time  the  mad- 
nt-'ss  ()I"  Cai  is  :  i:  »\v  he  called  himself  a  god. 
and  performed  as  emperor  innumerable  acts  of 
tyranny;  and  he  describes  further  the  miseries 
of  the  Jews  under  him,  and  gives  a  report  of  the 
embassy  upon  which  he  himself  was  sent  to 
Rome  in  behalf  of  his  fellow-countrymen  in 
Alexandria;-  how  when  he  appeared  before 

practical,   &c.)    are    very    numerous,   and  probably   the   majority  of 
then,  are  uill  extant.      Koi  particulars,  J    F^.ln 

excellent  a. 

•  Id.    II.    p 

831  to  884  (Leipzig,  1881  ),    where  the  chief  literature   upon   the   sub- 

'"  Plnlo  was  thoroughly  acquainted  with  Greek  literature  in  all  its 
departments  and  shows  great  familiarity  with  it  in  his  works.  The 
influence  of]  lato  upon  him  was  very  great,  not  only  upon  liis  philo- 
sophical system,  but  also  upon  his  language:  and  ail  the  Greek 
Ph.  osophers  v,  stu  ,;  d  rlnd  honored  by  him.  He  may,  indeed, 
hn, self  be  called  one  of  them  His  system  is  eclectic,  and  contains 
not  only  Platonic,  but  also  Pythagorean,  and  even  Stoic,  elements. 
1  !"_"'  ]•'-  specially  Seh:: 

"'',"    ";'"  '"''  '"    ' '"   "•  •      I  /:  t  seems 

to  be  the  same  work  under  t!n>e  two  different  titles  in  r 
""I  '•  nclusion    that  they  were  but    one 

confirmed  by   the  fact  that   Kusebius    (in    cha]  ions  the 

work  tinder  the  title  On  th,  I'irtne*,  which  he  says  that  Philo 
humorously  prefixed  to  his  work,  describing  the  impfety  of  Cains" 
I  he  onuss.on  of  the  title  ,  .p^a  ,n  so  complete' a  catalogue  of 
I  hilo  s  works  makes  its  identihcation  with  jrtpi  kp<  nav  very  urobi 
.  Of  the  five,  only  the  third  and  fourth  are  extant,  —  tV<PAaK- 
ituv,  AtiversHS  J'lac,  .•.-.•,-,  and  -,  ,n  irptcr/Jtia?  n-pos  I'dtor  de  lf"u 

Bookl'.,whchisaL>oTst:  ..-a.i'.'n.rV1,,"    o  pre",:"; 

of  the  Jews  during  the  time  ,,f  Tiberius,  by    Seianus  in  Korm-'-i, 
by  Pilate  in  Judea  (see  below    ,,  ,te  P,  ,   '    II]   '  ../,/'  .^..        '/•'• 

j-.SALs&\s^h^£^       EftiF 
^^ffici^1^,        iilih'afdt^ 

honors   should   everywhere   he   paid  him;    P,,,,,k   V.,   the  TraAu'coSia 

ftl  £w  r^V, ^)nl;!inc<1  •!"  ^onnt  of  the  change  for  the  better' in 

Jews   condition  through  the  death  of  Cains,  and  the  edict  of  tol- 

S?TS?  y  pon  thc  other  works  of  Phil0- -<-• 

-  The  occasion  of  this  embassy  was  a  terrible  disturbance  whirl, 
had  ar  sen  between  the  Jews  and  Greeks  u,  Alexandria,  and  ha 
continued  with  occasional  interruptions  for  more  than  a  year.  Much 
blood  had  been  shed,  and  affairs  were  becoming  constantly  worse- 
All  eflorts  to  secure  peace  utterly  failed,  and  finally,  in  40  A.rT  the 
Greeks  dispatched  an  embassy  to  the  emperor,  hoping  to  secure 
Irom  him  an  edict  for  the  extermination  of  the  Jews.  The  Jews,  on 

Caius  in  behalf  of  the  laws   of  his  fathers  he  re- 
ceived nothing  but  laughterand  ridicule,  and 
almost   incurred  the  risk   of  his   life.      Jose-        2 
phus  also  makes  mention  of  these  things  in 
the    eighteenth    book   of  his  Antiquities,  in   the 
following  words  : :;  "A   sedition   having  arisen  in 
Alexandria   between    the    Jews   that   dwell   there 
and  the  ( Greeks,1  three  deputies  were  chosen 
from  each  faction  and  went  to  Caius.      One        3 
of    the    Alexandrian    deputies   was    Apion/' 
who  uttered    many   slanders    against    the    Jews; 
among  other  things   saying   that   they  neglected 
the  honors  due  to  Ciesar.      For  while  al'l  other 
subjects  of  Rome  erected  altars  and  temples  to 
Cains,  and  in  all  other  respects  treated  him    just 
as   they  did   the  gods,  they   alone   considered   it 
disgraceful  to  honor  him  with  statues  and 
to  swear  by  his  name.     And  when  Apion        4 
had  uttered  many  severe  charges  by  which 
he  hoped  that  Caius  would  be  aroused,  as  indeed 
was  likely,    Philo,  the  chief  of  the  Jewish  em- 
bassy,   a    man    celebrated    in    even'    respect,    a 
brother    of  Alexander   the   Alabarch,0  and    not 
unskilled   in  philosophy,  was  prepared  to  enter 

iwed  the  example  of  the  Greeks,  sen, ling  an   embassy 

vr   their  own   defense,  with  Philo   at    its    head.      The 'result   was  as 

Iv.'sel, ins  relates,  and  the  Jews  were  left   in   a   worse    condition    than 

•loic,    from    which     however,    they   were    speedily    relieved    by  the 

death   of  Cams.      Claudius,  who   succeeded   Caius,  restored   to  them 

;r  a    time    religious    freedom    and    all    the    rights  which    they   had 

hitherto  enjoyed. 

Josephus,  Ant.  XVIII.  8.  i. 

1   Tins    sedition,  mentioned   above,  began   in    38   A  i>      soon    after 
the  accession  ,  ,f  Caius.      The  Jews,  since  the  time  of  Alexander  the 
-real,  w.ien  they  had  come  in  great  numbers   to  the   newly  founded 
city,    Alexandria,   had    enjoyed  with   occasional    interruptions    high 
!  were  among  the  most  inlluential  inhabitants.      They 
possessed  all   the  rights  of  citizenship  and   stood    upon   an   equality 
with  their  neighbors  in  all  respects.     When  Alexandria  fell   into  the 
hands  of  the    Romans,  all  the  inhabitants,  Jews  as  well   as  Greeks, 
were  compelled  to  take  a  position  subordinate  to  tile  conquerors   but 
their  condition  was  not  worse  than   that  of  their   neighbors      They 
had  always,  however,  been  hated  more  or  less  by  their  fellow-citizens 
on  account  of  their  prosperity,  which  was  the  result  of  superior  edu- 
cation and  industry.    This  enmity  came  to  a  crisis  under  Cains,  when 
the  nnaiK  .al  condition    of  Egypt  was  very  bad,    and    the   inhabitants 
jit  themselves   unusually  burdened  by  the    Roman   demands.      The 
old  hatred  for  their  in,, re  prosperous  neighbors  broke  out  afresh    and 
the   terrible  disturbance   mentioned   was   the   result.      The   refusal   of 
the  Jews  tow,  rship  Caius  as  a  God  was  made  a  pretext  for  attacking 
i,  and  it  was  this  refusal  which   gained  for   them   the  hatred  o? 
Cams  himself. 

•  A;,!  ,n  chief  of  the  Greek  deputies,  was  a  grammarian  of  \lex- 
a"'JrM  ""''  '''"I  won  great  fame  as  a  writer  and  Greek  scholar.  He 
S'.'''"1S  t'J  have  been  very  unscrupulous  and  profligate,  and  was  a 
nd  persistent  enemy  of  the  Jews,  whom  he  attacked  very  se- 
verely in  at  least  two  of  his  works -the  l^yj.tia,,  History  and  a 
special  work  Against  the  f/Y.v,,  neither  of  which  is  extant  He- 
was  very  unscrupulous  in  Ins  attacks,  inventing  the  most  absurd 
and  malicious  falsehoods,  w-hich  were  quite  generally  believed  and 
were  the  means  of  spreading  still  more  widely  the  common  hatred  of 
the  Jews.  Against  him  Josephus  wrote  his  celebrated  work 

ignorance  and  mendacity  of  Apion.  In  the  Pseudo-Clementines  he 
plays  an  important  (but  of  course  fictitious)  role  as  an  antagonist  of 
the  Gospel.  I  he  extant  fragments  of  Apion's  works  are  given  ac- 
cording to  Lightfoot,  in  M tiller's  1-ra^,,,.  Hist.  C, r«c  II.  506  so 
and  in  Kabricius'  /,'//,/.  Gr<rc.  I.  503,  and  VII.  50.  Compare  Light- 
toot  s  article  in  Smith  and  Wace's  Diet,  of  Christ,  ttiog. 

''  The  Alabarch  was  the  chief  magistrate  of  the  Jews  at  Alexan- 
dria. Alexander  was  a  very  rich  and  influential  Jew,  who  was  widely 
known  and  held  in  high  esteem.  His  son  Tiberius  Alexander  wa". 
appointed  procurator  of  Judea  in  46  A.D.,  as  successor  of  Cuspir* 
fadus.  Philo  thus  belonged  to  a  high  and  noble  Jewish  family 
1  he  accuracy  of  Josephus' statement  that  Philo  was  the  brother  of 
the  Alabarch  Alexander  has  been  denied  (e.g.,  by  F.wald,  (7,-*,-/i  ,/,  v 
Juaischen  I'olkcs,  Vol.  VI.  p.  235),  and  the  Alabarch  has  been  as- 
sumed to  have  been  the  nephew  of  Philo,  but  this  without  sufficient 
ground  (compare  Schiirer,  //•/</.  p.  832,  note  5). 

II.  6.] 



upon  a  defense   in  reply  to  his  accusations. 

5  But  Cains  prevented  him  and   ordered  him 
to  leave,  and  being  very  angry,  it  was  plain 

that  he  meditated  some  severe  measure  against 
them.  And  1'hilo  departed  covered  with  insult, 
and  told  the  Jews  that  were  with  him  to  be  of 
good  courage  ;  for  while  Gains  was  raging  against 
them  he  was  in  fact  already  contending 

6  with  God."    Thus  far  Josephus.    And  Philo 
himself,    in    the    work    On    the    Embassy'' 

which  he  wrote,  describes  accurately  and  in 
detail  the  things  which  were  done  by  him  at 
that  time.  But  I  shall  omit  the  most  of  them, 
and  record  only  those  things  which  will  make 
clearly  evident  to  the  reader  that  the  misfor- 
tunes of  the  Jews  came  upon  them  not  long 
after  their  daring  deeds  against  Christ  and 

7  on  account  of  the   same.      And  in  the  first 
place  he  relates  that  at  Rome  in  the  reign 

of  Tiberius,  Sejanus,  who  at  that  time  enjoyed 
great  influence  with  the  emperor,  made  every 
effort  to  destroy  the  Jewish  nation  utterly  ; s  ant1 
that  in  fudea,  Pilate,  under  whom  the  crimes 
against  the  Saviour  were  committed,  attempts, 
something  contrary  to  the  Jewish  law  in  respecl 
to  the  temple,  which  was  at  that  time  still  stand- 
ing in  Jerusalem,  and  excited  them  to  the  great- 
est tumults.1' 


1  AITKR  the  death   of  Tiberius,   Cains  re- 

ceived the  empire,  and,  besides  innumerable 
other  acts  of  tyranny  against  many  people,  he 
greatly  afflicted  especially  the  whole  nation  of 
the  jews.1  These  tilings  we  may  learn  briefly  from 

7  See  note  i,  above.     The 

f»  '1'hc  Jews  in  Rome  had  enjoyed  the  favor  of  Augustus,  and  had 
increased  greatly  in  numbers  and  influence  there.  They  were  first 
disturbed  by  Tiberius,  who  was  very  hostile  to  them,  and  to  whose 
notice  all  the  worst  sides  of  Jewish  character  were  brought  by  their 
enemies,  especially  by  Sejanus,  who  had  great  influence  with  the 
emperor,  and  was  moreover  a  deadly  enemy  of  the  Jews.  1  he  Jews 
were  driven  out  of  Rome,  and  suffered  many  acts  of  violence.  After 
the  death  of  Sejanus,  which  took  place  in  31  A.H.,  they  were  allowed 
to  return,  and  their  former  rights  were  restored. 

CJ  Pilate  proved  himself  exceedingly  tyrannical,  and  was  very  ob- 
noxious to  the  Jews,  offending  them  greatly  at  different  times  during 
his  administration  by  disregarding  their  religious  scruples  as  no  pro- 
curator before  him  had  ventured  to  do.  Soon  after  his  accession  1 

the  words  of  Philo,  who  writes  as  follows  :  - 
•So  great  was  the  caprice  of  Cains   in  hi>        2 
onduct    toward    all,   and  especially  toward 
he   nation  of  the  Jews.     The  latter  lie  so   bit- 
erly  hated  that  lie  appropriated  to  hiniM-lf  their 
places  of  worship  in  the  other  cities,1'1  and  begin- 
ling  with  Alexandria  he  filled  them  with  images 
md  statues  of  himself  (for  in   permitting  others 
to  erect  them  he  really  erected  them  himself). 
The  temple  in  the  holy  city,  which  had  hitherto 
>een  left  untouched,  and  had  been  regarded  as 
m  inviolable  asylum,  he  altered  and  transformed 
into  a  temple  of  his  own,  that  it  might  be  called 
the  temple  of  the  visible  Jupiter,  the  younger 
Cains."1      Innumerable    other  terrible    and        3 
almost  indescribable  calamities  which  came 
upon  the   Jews  in   Alexandria  during  the  reign 
of  the  same  emperor,  are  recorded   by  the  same 
author  in  a  second  work,  to  which  he  gave  the 
title,    On    the    Virtues:'      With   him   agrees  also 
Josephus,  who    likewise   indicates  that  the  mis- 
fortunes  of   the  whole  nation    began    with    the 
time  of  Pilate,  and  with  their  daring  crimes 
against  the  Saviour.'1     Hear  what  he  says  in       4 
the  second  book  of  his  Jewish  War,  where 
he  writes  as    follows:7    "Pilate    being    sent   to 
Judea  as  procurator  by  Tiberius,  secretly  carried 
veiled  images  of  the  emperor,  called  ensigns/  to 
Jerusalem  by   night.      The    following    day    this 
caused  the  greatest  disturbance  among  the  Jews. 
For  those  who  were  near  were  confounded  at 
the  sight,  beholding  their  laws,  as  it  were,  tram- 
pled under  foot.     For  they  allow  no  image 
to    be    set   up    in  their  city."     Comparing       5 
these  things  with  the  writings  of  the  evan- 
gelists, you  will  see  that  it  was  not  long  before 
there  came  upon  them  the  penalty  for  the  excla- 
mation which  they  had  uttered  under  the  same 
Pilate,  when  they  cried  out  that  they  had 
no    other    king    than    Ca:sar.'J      The    same       6 
writer  further  records  that  after  this  another 
calamity  overtook  them.    lie  writes  as  follows  : ln 
"After  this    he    stirred    up    another  tumult    by 
making  use  of  the  holy  treasure,  which  is  called 
Corban,11   in    the    construction   of  an    aqueduct 

oman  san  . 

•md  Pilate  was  forced  to  yield  and  withdraw  the  offensive  ens 
(Josephus,  n.  y.  II.  9.  2;  see  the  next  chapter).  At  another  tune 
he  offended  the  Jews  by  hanging  in  his  palace  some  shields  inscribed 
with  the  names  of  heathen  deities,  which  he  removed  only  upon  an 
express  order  of  Tiberius  (Philo,  ad  Canini,  chap.  38).  Again,  he 
appropriated  a  part  of  the  treasure  of  the  temple  to  the  construction 
of  an  aqueduct,  which  caused  another  terrible  tumult  which  was 
quelled  only  after  much  bloodshed  (Josephus,  />'.  J.  IT.  y.  4;  see 
the  next  chapter).  For  further  particulars  about  Pilate,  see  chap.  7, 

1  Cains'  hostility  to  the  Jews  resulted  chiefly  (as  mentioned 
above,  chap.  5,  note  4)  from  their  refusal  to  pay  him  divine  honors, 
which  he  demanded  from  them  as  well  as  from  his  other  subjects. 
His  demands  had  caused  terrible  disturbances  in  Alexandria;  and 
in  Jerusalem,  where  he  commanded  the  temple  to  be  devoted  to  his 
worship,  the  tumult  was  very  great  and  was  quieti-d  only  by  the 

vieldin"of  the  emperor,  who  was  induced  to  give  up  his  demands 
by  the  request  of  Agnppa,  who  was  then  at  Rome  and  m  high  lavor 
with  him.  Whether  the  Jews  suffered  in  the  same  way  in  Rome 
we  do  not  know,  but  it  is  probable  that  the  emperor  endeavored  t, 
carry  out  the  same  plan  there  as  elsewhere. 

2  Philo,  Li-i^at.  ad  Caium,  43. 

3  fv  TOUT  a\\ai<;  Trt>\ccn..      The  reason  for  the  use  of    the  word 
"other"  is  not  quite  clear,  though    Philo    perhaps    means    all    the 
cities  except  Jerusalem,  which  he  mentions  a  little  below. 

«  "'Cains  the  younger,"  to  distinguish  him  from  Julius  Cresar 
who  bore  the  name  Cains,  and  who  was  also  deified  "  (\  alesius) 

•'  This  work  is  probably  the  same  as  that  mentioned  in  the  begin- 
ning of  chap.  5.  (See  chap.  5,  note  i.)  The  work  seems  to  have 
borne  two  titles  i,  7rp«r/3,  .a  and  Tr.-pi  aperuv.  _See  Schurer,  ibid.  p. 
859,  who  considers  the  Sturepw  here  the  addition  of  a  copyist,  wlio 
could  not  reconcile  the  two  different  titles  given  by  Kusebius. 

11  This  is  rather  an  unwarranted  assumption  on  the  part  ot  I 
bins,  as  Josephus  is  very  far  from  intimating  that  the  calamities 
the  nation  were  a  consequence  of  their  crimes  against  our  Saviour. 


I  TO 


[II.  6. 

7  three  hundred  sl;idi;i  in  length.1-  The  mul- 
titude were  greatly  displeased  at  it,  and 
when  Pilate  was  in  Jerusalem  tliev  surroundet 
his  tribunal  and  gave  utterance  to  lend  com- 
plaints. Hut  he,  anticipating  the  tumult,  had 
distributed  through  the  crowd  armed  soldiers 
disguised  in  citi/.en's  (K>thi:ig,  forbidding  tliem 
to  use  the  sword,  but  commanding  them  to 
strike  with  clubs  those  who  should  make  an  out- 
er}-. To  them  he  now  gave  the  preconcerted 
signal  from  the  tribunal.  And  the  lews  being 
beaten,  many  of  them  perished  in  consequence 
ot  the  blows,  while  many  others  were  trampled 
under  foot  by  their  own  countrvmen  iu  their 
llight,  and  thus  lost  their  lives.  I',ut  the  multi- 
tude, overawed  by  the  fate  of  those  who 
8  were  slain,  held  their  peace."  In  addition 
to  these  the  same  author  records  l:!  manv 
other  tumults  which  were  stirred  up  in  Jerusalem 
itself,  and  shows  that  from  that  time  seditions 
and  wars  and  mischievous  plots  followed  each 
other  in  quick  succession,  and  never  ceased  in 
the  city  and  in  all  Judea  until  finally  the  siege 
of  Vespasian  overwhelmed  them.  Thus  the 
divine  vengeance  overtook  the  (ews  for  the 
crimes  which  they  dared  to  commit  against 


1 1-  is  worthy  of  note  that  Pilate  himself,  who 
was  governor  in  the  time  of  our  Saviour,  is  re- 
ported to  have  fallen  into  such  misfortunes  under 
Cains,  whose  times  we  arc  recording,  that  he  was 
forced  to  become  his  own  murderer  and  execu- 
tioner;1 and  thus  divine  vengeance,  as  it  seems, 
was  not  long  in  overtaking  him.  This  is  stated 

y  those   Creek    historians   who   have    recorded 

ie    Olympiads,    together    with    the     respective 

events  winch  have  taken  place  in  each  period.2 


T/ic  Famine  -.cliich   f<n>k   Place  in   the  Reign   of 

Clan  tii  its. 

Curs  had   held  the  power  not  quite  four        1 
years,1  when  he  was  succeeded   by  the   em- 
peror Claudius.      Under  him  the  world  was  vis- 
ited with  a  famine,2  which  writers  that  are  entire 
strangers  to  our  religion  have  recorded  in  their 
histories.3     And   thus  the   prediction  of  Agabus 
recorded  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,4  according 
to  which  the  whole  world  was  to  be  visited 
by  a  famine,  received  its  fulfillment.     And        2 
Luke,    in    the    Acts,  after    mentioning    the 
famine  in  the  time  of  Claudius,  and  stating  that 
the  brethren  of  Antioch,  each  according  to  his 
ability,   sent  to   the   brethren  of  Judea    by   the 
hands  of  Paul  and  Barnabas,''  adds  the  following 

The  Martyrdom  of  James  the  Apostle. 

Now  about  that  time  "  (it  is  clear  that       1 
ie   means   the   time   of  Claudius)  "Herod 
the  King'' stretched  forth  his  hands  to  vex  cer- 
tain of  the  Church.     And  he  killed  James 
the  brother  of  John  with  the  sword."  "  And       2 
concerning  this  James,  Clement,  in  the  sev- 
enth book  of  his  IIypotyposes,;i  relates  a  story 

originally  any  offering  to  Hod,  especially  an  offering  in  fulfillment 
'I  •  vow.  Tr.e  form  .cop/Wis-,  which  Joseplius  1..,,  employed 
is  used  to  denote  the  sacred  treasure  or  the  treasury  itself 
In  Matt,  xxvii.  -  ,  the  only  place  where  this  form  of  the  woi 
in  tne  V- v  Testament,  it  is  used  with  the  latter  meaning.  Upon 
this  act  of  Pilate  s,  see  above,  chap.  5,  note  y. 

'-  Josephus,  in  Ant.  XVIII.  3.  2,  says  that  the  aqueduct  was 
200  stadia  long.  In  the  passage  which  Eusebius  quotes  the  number 
given  is  400,  according  to  the  Creek  MSS.  of  (osephus,  though  the 
old  Latin  translation  agrees  with  Eusebius  in  readm  '  -»'  Th» 
situation  of  the  aqueduct  we  do  not  know,  though  the  remains  of  an 
ancient  aqueduct  have  been  found  to  the  south  of  Icruvde'n  and  it 
IS  thought  that  this  may  have  been  the  same.  It  H  possible  that 
Pilate  did  not  construct  a  new  aqueduct,  but  simply  restored  one 
that  had  been  built  in  the  time  of  Solomon  Schu'l1/  (7 -rii  •  i! --it 
Berlin,  1845)  suggests  the  number  40,  supposing  that  the  aqueduct 
began  at  Bethlehem,  winch  ,s  40  stadia  from  Jerusalem. 

See  /i.  7.  II.   10,  12  sqq. 

i  Pilate's  downfall  occurred  in  the  following  manner.  A  leader 
of  the  Samaritans  had  promised  to  disclose  the  sacred  treasures  which 
Moses  was  reported  to  have  concealed  upon  Mt.  Gerlin  and  he 
Samantans  came  together  in  great  numbers  from  all  quarters.  Pilate 
supposing  the  gathering  to  be  with  rebellious  purpose  sent  troops 
against  them  and  defeated  them  with  great  slaughter  The  S-, man- 
tons  complained  to  Vitellius,  governor  of  Syria';  who  Se-,t  Pi!  ,,e  to 
Kome  (36  A.D.)  to  answer  the  charges  brought  a-ain-t  him  T'non 
reaching  Rome  he  found  Tiberius  dead  and  Cai,,;  upon  the  throne" 
He  was  unsuccessful  in  his  attempt  !o  ,!cf-n  1  him-  If  .-,,,,1  nc<-oH- 
mg  to  tradition,  was  banished  to  Virnne  \\  f ",  nil  u  her"  Vmonu 
mcnt  is  still  shown  as  Pilate's  tomb.  Accordin"  M  .mother  trailiti  m 
he  committed  suicide  upon  the  mountain  near  f..l,e  Lucerne,' which 
hears  his  name. 

to  us.  We  are  unable,  therefore,  to  form  a  judgment  as  to  the  trust- 
worthiness of  the  account. 

1  Cains  ruled  from  March  16,  A.D.  37,  to  Jan.  24,  A.D.  41,  and 
was  succeeded  by  his  uncle  Claudius. 

-  .Several  famines  occurred  during  the  reign  of  Claudius  (cf.  Dion 
Cassius,  LX.  ii,  Tacitus,  Anna!.  XII.  i3,'and  Eusebius,  Chrs, 

to  Jo 

111    JtlC 

U-t  A..).),  and  Alexander    was   succeeded   by  Cumanus  in  48   AD 
:  exact   date  of  Alexander's  accession  we   do   not   know,  but   it 
>k  place  probably  about  45  or  46.      This  famine  is  without  doubt 
the  one  referred  to  by  Agabus   in  Acts  xi.   28 
of   the    word   oixou/acr)),    in    that    pas^ •'••••     '- 
Whether  it  refers  simply  to  Palest' 

'I  he  exact  meaning 
a   matter   of  dispute. 

void  in  its  widest  sense,  and  therefore  assumes  a  universal  famine; 
but  he  is  mistaken  in  his  assumption. 

_•'•  The  only  non-Christian  historians,  so  far  as  we  know,  to  record 
a  famine  during  the  reign  of  Claudius,  are  ]  >ii,n  Cassius  and  Tacitus, 
who  mention  a  famine  in  Rome,  and  Josephus,  who  speaks  of  the 
famine  in  Judea  (see  the  previous  note  for  the  references).  Euse- 
bius, in  his  Cfiroii.,  mentions  famines  both  in  Greece  and  in  Rome 
during  this  reign,  but  upon  what  authority  we  do  not  know.  As 
already  remarked,  we  have  no  extant  account  of  a  general  famine  at 
this  time. 

4  Acts  xi.  28.  '•  Acts  xi.  20,  30.  J  Acts  xii.  i,  2. 

-  Hcrnd  Agrippa  T.;   see  above,  chap.  4,  note  3. 

:;  On  Clement's  //r/Wr,A>.v,'.v,  see  below,  T.k.  Vl.  chap.  13,  note  3. 

This  fragment  is  preserved  by  Eusebius  alone.  The  account 
was  probably  received  by  Clement  from  oral  tradition.  He  had  a 
great  store  of  such  traditions  of  the  apostles  and  their  immediate  fol- 

II.    10.] 


1 1  i 

which  is  worthy  of  mention  ;  telling  it  as  he  re- 
ceived it  from  those  who  had  lived  before  him. 
He  says  that  the  one  who  led  James  to  the  judg- 
ment-seat, when  he  saw  him  bearing  his  testi- 
mony, was  moved,  and  confessed  that  he 

3  was  himself  also  a  Christian.     They  were 
both  therefore,  he  says,  led  away  together  ; 

and  on  the  way  he  begged  James  to  forgive  him. 

And  he,  after  considering  a  little,  said,  "  Peace 

be  with  thce,"  and  kissed  him.     And  thus  they 

were    both    beheaded   at   the    same    time. 

4  And  then,  as    the    divine    Scripture    says,' 
Herod,  upon  the  death  of  James,  seeing  that 

the  deed  pleased  the  Jews,  attacked  Peter  also 
and  committed  him  to  prison,  and  would  have 
slain  him  if  he  had  not,  by  the  divine  appearance 
of  an  angel  who  came  to  him  by  night,  been 
wonderfully  released  from  his  bonds,  and  thus 
liberated  for  the  service  of  the  Gospel.  Such 
was  the  providence  of  God  in  respect  to  Peter. 


Agrippa,  wJio  was  also  called  Herod,  having  per- 
secitted  tlie  Apostles,  immediately  experienced 
the  Divine  Vengeance. 

1  THE  consequences  of  the  king's  under- 
taking against  the  apostles  were  no4;  long 

deferred,  "but  the  avenging  minister  of  divine 
justice  overtook  him  immediately  after  his  plots 
against  them,  as  the  Book  of  Acts  records.1 
For  when  he  had  journeyed  to  Crcsarea,  on  a 
notable  feast-day,  clothed  in  a  splendid  and  royal 
garment,  he  delivered  an  address  to  the  people 
from  a  lofty  throne  in  front  of  the  tribunal.  Am1 
when  all  the  multitude  applauded  the  speech,  a: 
if  it  were  the  voice  of  a  god  and  not  of  a  man 
the  Scripture  relates  that  an  angel  of  the  Lon 
smote  him,  and  being  eaten  of  worms  he 

2  gave  up  the  ghost.-     We  must  admire  the 
account  of  Josephus  for  its  agreement  with 

the  divine  Scriptures  in  regard  to  this  wonderfu 

event ;  for  he  clearly  bears  witness  to  the  trutl 

in  the  nineteenth  book  of  his  Antiquities,  where 

he    relates    the   wonder   in    the    following 

3  words:3    "He    had    completed    the    thin 
year  of  his  reign  over  all  Judea 4  when  h 

came   to   Ceesarea,  "which    was    formerly   callec 
Strato's  Tower.5     There  he  held  games  in  hono 

of  Crcsar,  learning  that  this  was  a  festival   ob- 
served   in    behalf   of   Cresar's    safety.11     At    this 
festival  was  collected  a  great  multitude  of  the 
highest  and  most  honorable  men  in  the  prov- 
ince.    And  on  the  second  day  of  the  games        4 
lie   proceeded   to   the   theater  at  break  of 
day,  wearing  a  garment  entirely  of  silver  and  of 
wonderful   texture.     And   there   the  silver,   illu- 
minated by  the  reflection  of  the   sun's  earliest 
rays,  shone  marvelously,    gleaming    so    brightly 
as  to  produce  a  sort  of  fear  and  terror  in 
those  who  ga/.ed  upon  him.     And   imme-        5 
lately  his  flatterers,  some  from  one  place, 
thers  from  another,  raised  up  their  voices  in  a 
-ay  that  was  not  for  his  good,  calling  him  a  god, 
ml    saying,  '  15e    thou  merciful;    if  up  to  this 
me  we  have  feared  thee  as  a  man,  henceforth 
:e   confess   that   thou   art   superior  to   the 
ature  of  mortals.'     The  king  did  not  re-        6 
iiike  them,  nor  did  he  reject  their  impious 
.attery.     But  after  a  little,  looking  up,  he  saw 
n  angel  sitting  above  his  head.7     And  this  he 
luickiy  perceived  would  be  the  cause  of  evil  as 

lowers  —in  how  far  true  or  false  it  is  impossible  to  say;   compar 

ehe  story  which  he  tells  of  John,  quoted  by  Eusebius,  Bk.  III.  chat 

23   below.     This  story  of  James  is  not  intrinsically  improbable.     1 

may  have  been  true,  though  external  testimony  for  it  is,  of  course 

•eak      The  Latin   legends  concerning  James'  later  labors  in  Spai 

ml  his  burial   in   Compostella  are  entirely  worthless.     Epiphanu 

eports  that  he  was  unmarried,  and  lived  the  life  of  a  Nazarite;  bl 

e  gives  no  authority  for  his  statement,  and  it  is  not  improbable  thr 

he  report  originated  through  a  confusion  of  this  James  with  Jamt 

lie  Just.  4  Acts  xn-  3  sqq- 

1  See  Acts  xii.  19  sqq.  -  Acts  xn.  23. 

3  Josephus,  Ant.  XIX.  8.  2. 

4  44A.D.    Agrippa  began  to  reign  over  the  whole  kingdo 
A.D.     See  above,  chap.  4,  note  3. 

5  Caesarea  lay  upon  the  Mediterranean  bea,  northwest  ol 

oint   called  "  Strato's  Tower";   but  about  IOB.C 

uilt'the  city  of  Cxsarea,  which  soon  became  the  principal  Roman 
ity  of  Palestine,  and  was  noted  for  its  magnificence.      It  became, 

iow  a  scene  of  utter  desolation. 

''•  The  occasion  of  this  festival  is  uncertain.  Some  have  consicl- 
red  it  the  festival  in  honor  of  the  birth  of  Claudius;  others,  a  festi- 
-il  in  honor  of  the  return  of  Claudius  from  Britain.  But  neither  o 
liese  suggestions  is  likely.  It  is  more  probable  that  the  festival 

nentioned"  was  the  QninqitennaUa,  instituted  by  Herod  the  Great 

n  honor  of  Augustus  in  12  u.c.  (see  Josephus,  Ant.  A\  .  8.  i;   />.  J. 

I    21    S),  and  celebrated  regularly  every  five  years.     See  \V  leseler  s 
Chronologic  des  ap.  /.eitaltcrs,  p.  131  sqq.,  where  this  question  is 

carefully  discussed  in  connection  with  the  date  of  Agnppa's  death, 

vhich  is  fixed  by  Wieseler  as  Aug.  6,  44  A. D. 

as  it  had  once  been  the  messenger  of  good  tidings  to  bun. 

i'his"conveys  an  entirely  different  sense,  the  owl  being  omitted  in 

Eusebius.     As  a  consequence  most  writers  on  Eusebius  have  made 

the    honesty   of  Eusebius   in    the  most  direct  manner  —  should  not 
be  made  except  upon  unanswerable  grounds.      Eusebius   elsewhere 

shows  himself  to  be  a  writer  who,  though  not  always  critical,  is  at 

east 'honest  in  the  use  he  makes  of  his  materials.     In  this  case, 

ome  texts  of  Josephus.     The  manner  in  which  Kusebm>  deal 

as  the   case    is  not  uncommonly   stated.     The    result    is   produced 

mainly  by  the  omission  of  some  words  in  the  text  of  Josephus,  which 
runs  thus:    avaKv^as  5'  06,'  ,xeT    b\iyov    [rbr  ftovfava]  rr,,   .ai'Tot 

over  Tor  (3ou/3wra,  which  had  a  wholly  different  meaning  ar 
never  to  have  been  used  of  an  owl  in  Greek;   and  he  would  altei 
text  in  order  to  extract  some  sense  out  of  it.     In  the  previom 
tion  of  the  bird  (.-hit.  XVIII.  6,  7)  Josephus,  or  his_tr:msl:i 
it  as  a  Latin  name:   flavfHava.  fit  01  'Pw/xuioi  Tor '.''"'"'  T  k"; 

AoC<ri.    Moller  (quoted  by  Bright,  p.  XLV.)  calls  this  '  the  one  case 

I  12 


[IT.  10. 

it  had  once  been  the  cause  of  good  fortune,"  and 
he  was   smitten   with  a  heart-piercing   pain. 

7  And  straightway  distress,  beginning  with  tin- 
greatest   violence,   sei/ed   his  bowels.      And 

looking  upon  his  friends  he  said, '  I,  your  god,  am 
now  commanded  to  depart  this  life  ;  and  fate  thus 
on  the  spot  disproves  the  lying  words  you  have 
just  uttered  concerning  me.  He  who  has  been 
called  immortal  by  you  is  now  led  away  to  die  ; 
but  our  destiny  mtist  be  accepted  as  God  has  de- 
termined it.  For  we  have  passed  our  liie  by 
no  means  inglorious]}-,  but  in  that  splendor 

8  which    is    pronounced    happin.  And 
when  he  had  said  this  he   labored  with  an 

increase  of  pain.  lie  was  accordingly  carried 
in  haste  to  the  palace,  while  the  report  spread 
among  all  that  the  king  would  undoubtedly  soon 
die.  Jkit  the  multitude,  with  their  wives  and 
children,  sitting  on  sackcloth  after  the  custom 
of  their  fathers,  implored  God  in  behalf  of  the 
king,  and  everyplace  was  filled  with  lamentation 
and  tears.1"  And  the  king  as  he  lay  in  a  lofty 

in  whi.  h,  so  I  ir        he  recollects,  '    • 
tie. \ it  n,'stfr';   and  even  here  the  indi.  11... 
The  severe  stiirtures  against  Rusebius,  n 
xii.   21,   are  altogether  unjustifiable" 
Christina  Hittg.  II.  p.  325).     The  CP  ,-k 

cording  to  Liddcll  and  Scott,   (i)  th,-  .,,,7.7       •)  ,i  sivc!liiu;  in  ihr 
nifies  "  an       •  e    ...  rd   is 

here  directly  transferred  by  Josephn.s  from  the  Latin  into  Creek 
without  any  explanation.  A  scribe  unacquainted  v.uh  Latin  might 
easily  stumble  at  the  word,  as  Lightfoot  suggests.  In  .int.  XVIII. 
6,  7,  where  the  bird  is  mentioned,  the  name  is,  to  be  sine,  explained  ; 
but  the  alteration  at  this  point  was  made  apparently  by  a  copyist  of 
'•'••'  ;ebius,  n  .t  of  Josephus,  and  therefore  by  one  who"  had  pi  ibably 
never  seen  ihat  e\pl 

Whiston  in  his  translation  of  Josephus  inserts  a  note  to  the  fol- 
lowing effect :  "  We  have  a  mighty  cry  made  here  by  some  writers, 
as  if  the  great  Kuse'.ia.s  had  on  purpose  falsified  this  ao 
Josephus,  so  as  to  make  it  agree  with  the  parallel  account  in  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles,  beca  i,e  the  present  copies  of  his  citation  of  it, 
Hist.  Eccles.  Bk.  II.  chap  10,  omit  the  word'  •:  ..  .i-, !•  .....'-.-,' 
rr^oiv  ov,  Tiro?,  i.e.  'an  owl  ...  on  a  certain  rope,'  win. 
phus'  present  copies  retain,  and  only  have  the  explanatoiy  word 
'•yy«A.)«',  or  'angel,'  as  if  he  meant  .hat  'angel  ol  the  Lord ' 
which  St.  Luke  mentions  as  smiting  Herod,  Acts  ::ii.  23,  and  not 
that  owl,  which  Josephus  called  '  an  angel  or  messenger,  formerly  of 
good  'nit  now  of  bad  news,'  to  Agrippa.  This  accusation  is  a 
somewhat  strange  one  in  the  case  of  the  great  Eusebius,  who  is 
known  to  have  so  accurately  and  faithfully  produced  a  vast  number 
it  records  and  particularly  not  a  few  out  of  our  Jose- 
phus  als  i,  without  any  suspicion  of  prevarication.  Now.  not  to 
allege  how  uncertain  we  are,  wdiether  Josephn.s'  and  Kusebins' 
.'  the  :  nirth  century  were  just  like  the  present  in  this  clause 
ve  have  no  distinct  evidence  of,  the  following  words  preserved 
still  in  Kusebius  will  not  admit  of  any  su.-h  exposition.  '  This 
[bird]  {says  Eusebius;  Agrippa  presently  perceived  to  be  th,-  cause 
of  ill  fortune,  as  it  was  once  of  good  fortune';  wlii  h  can  belong 
only  t  ,  that  bird  the  '  owl,'  which,  as  it  had  formerly  foreboded  his 
happy  deliverance  fr  ,m  imprisonment,  Ant.  XVI!!.  (,.  7,  so  was  it 
then  foretold  I  .  pr  .ve  ifterward  the  unh  ippy  fore  va.rner  of  his  death  in 
nve  days  tin  ..  ie  impi  per  word  .UTW,  or  '  cause,' be  changed 
lor  Josephus  pi  ,p  r  word  iyycA  .,•,  'angel,'  or  'messenger,'  and 
! h<:  ,ore  '  I,  Euse- 

bius   levt  wni  truly  .  phus." 

]  -l"sePmis  (.-•'"'•  *\'HI    ".  7)  i    while   Agrippa  was 

in  chains -having  been   condemned  ...  imprisonment  by  Tiberius - 
an  o.vl  made  its  appearance  and  ,  ,   trce  nt,,r  him      A 

Silt'  V-ripp^wouM1  ww  bhV  '  '  !  '."""V'  'lr"P'"^ying 

km  ;.  h  it  that  th...  ,  ,me  bird  woul  .' :am"t",  ve  Tys 

be  I  .re  Ins  death.  ]  ibcrius  ,lie,l  in  1  ,nd  the  events 

prophesied  came  to  pass.  The  story  wn  implicitly  be- 

lie vol  liy  Josephns,  who  relates  it  in  good  faith. 

:'  The  text  of  Josephus,  as  well  as  -he  majority  of  the  MvS.  of 
Kusebius,  followed  by  Valesius,  Stroth,  Burton,  and  S,  hwegler,  read 
<!ri  r.;,-  .ia««pt£»ucr'i')}c  Aau-.^oTi/ro?,  which  I  have  adopted  in  prefer- 
ence to  the  reading  of  Heinichen,  who  follows  a  few  c;ood  M'SS  in 
substituting  M  i*<i,Ho7))To»r  for  '\>m-<,n-,,T<^. 

'"  This  shows  the  success  with  which  Agrippa  had  courted  the 
favor  of  the  Jews.  A  far  different  feeling  was  shown  -.t  bis  death 
from  that  exhibited  at  the  deatli  ol  his  /randlaih,  i .  I  !, uod  th,:  (  inidt. 

chamber,  and  saw  them  below  lying  prostrate 
on  the  ground,  could  not  refrain  from  weep- 
ing himself.  And  after  suffering  continually  9 
for  five  days  with  pain  in  the  bowels,  he 
departed  this  liie.  in  the  fifty-fourth  year  of  his 
age.  and  in  the  seventh  year  of  his  reign.11  Four 
years  he  ruled  under  the  Fmperor  Cams  —  three 
of  them  over  the  tetrarchy  of  Philip,  to  which 
was  added  in  the  fourth  year  that  of  Herod '- 
—  and  three  years  during  the  reign  of  the 
Fmperor  Claudius." 

I  marvel  greatly  that  Josephus,  in  these  10 
things  as  well  as  in  others,  so  fully  agrees 
with  the  divine  Scriptures.  15ut  if  there  should 
seem  to  anyone  to  be  a  disagreement  in  respect 
to  the  name  of  the  king,  the  time  at  least  and 
the  events  show  that  the  same  person  is  meant, 
whether  the  change  of  name  has  been  caused 
by  the  error  of  a  copyist,  or  is  due  to  the  fact 
that  lie,  like  so  many,  bore  two  names.1'" 


The  Impostor   Thciidits  atuf  his  Followers. 

LCKF.,  in  the  Acts,  introduces  Gamaliel  1 
as  saying,  at  the  consultation  which  was 
held  concerning  the  apostles,  that  at  the  time 
referred  to,1  "  rose  up  Theudas  boasting  himself 
to  be  somebody;  who  was  slain;  and  all,  as 
many  as  obeyed  him,  were  scattered."-  Let  us 
therefore  add  the  account  of  Josephus  concern- 
ing this  man.  He  records  in  the  work  mentioned 
just  above,  the  following  circumstances  :  ;! 
"While  Fadus  was  procurator  of  Judea4a  2 
certain  impostor  called  Theudas  '"'  persuaded 

11  He  was  born  in  10  B.C.,  and  began  to  reign  as  successor  of 
I  hihp  and  Lysamas  in  37  A.I).  See  above,  chap.  4,  note  3. 

'-    1  lerod  Antipas. 

1:1  Luke  always  calls  the  king,  Herod,  which  was  the  family 
name,  while  Josephus  calls  him  by  his  given  name  Agrippa.  He  is 
know  u  to  us  under  the  name  of  Herod  Agrippa  I.  It  seems  strange 
that  Kusebius  should  not  have  known  that  he  bore  the  two  names, 
Herod  Agrippa,  instead  of  expressing  doubt  in  the  matter,  as  he  does, 
in  the  heading  of  the  chapter  he  gives  the  king  both  names,  without 
intimating  that  he  entertained  any  uncertainty  in  «lie  matter. 

,</,-..  roi'  Sr)\ov/j.evoi'  xpot-oi',  i.e.  about  the  time  of  Agrippa's 
d(  lib.  Hut  Luke  writes  rrpii  yap  -TOVTM  iW  ififpui;  "  Before  these 

-  Acts  v.  36.  *  Josephus,  Ant.  XX.  5.  i. 
4   About  .)4  A.n.     See  above,  chap.  8,  note  2. 

•  There    is    a    chronological    difficulty    in    connection   with    this 
Theudas  which  has  caused  much  dispute.     The  Theudas  mentioned 
by  Josephus  arose  in  the  time  of  Claudius;  but  the  Theudas  referred 
to  by  (  lamaliel  in  the  Acts  must   have   lived  many  years  before  that. 
Various   solutions  of  greater  or   less   plausibility  have  been  offered, 
almost   any   one   of  which   is    possible,  and  abundantly  sufficient  to 
account  for  the  alleged  discrepancy,  though   none  can  be  proved  to 
be   true.     Compare   Wieseler's    C/trnn.    ties  <>/>.  Zcitalters,  p.  138, 
note  i  :   Kwald's  C,-nc/i.  ,/fs  JnJischcn  I'olkcs,  Bd.  VI.  p.  532;  Jost's 
G?s-  k.der  Isracliten,  I'd.  II.  Anhang,  p.  86;   and  the  various  com- 
mentaries on  the  Acts  in  loco. 

A  ([uestion  of  more  importance  for  us,  in  the  present  instance,  is 
as  to  Eusebius'  conduct  in  the  case.  He  identifies  the  Theudas  of 
Luke  with  the  Theudas  of  Josephus,  —  an  identification  which  is  im- 
possible, if  both  accounts  are  accepted  as  trustworthy.  Kusebius 
has  consequently  been  accused  of  an  intentional  perversion  of  facts 
for  the  sake  of  promoting  the  credibility  of  Luke's  accounts.  But  a 
protest  must  again  be  entered  against  such  grave  imputations  upon 
the  honesty  of  Eusebius.  A  man  with  a  very  small  allowance  ol 
common  sense  would  certainly  not  have  been  so  foolish  as  con- 
sciously to  involve  himself  in  such  a  glaring  anachronism  —  an  anach- 

II-  13.] 


a  very  great  multitude  to  take  their  possessions 
and  follow  him  to  the  river  Jordan.  For  he 
said  that  he  was  a  prophet,  and  that  the  river 
should  be  divided  at  his  command,  and  afford 

them  an  easy  passage.  And  with  these 
3  words  he  deceived  many.  But  Fadus  did 

not  permit  them  to  enjoy  their  folly,  but 
sent  a  troop  of  horsemen  against  them,  who  fell 
upon  them  unexpectedly  and  slew  many  of  them 
and  took  many  others  alive,  while  they  took 
Theudas  himself  captive,  and  cut  off  his  head 
and  carried  it  to  Jerusalem."  Besides  this  he 
also  makes  mention  of  the  famine,  which  took 
place  in  the  reign  of  Claudius,  in  the  following 

Helen,  the  Queen  of  the  Osrhwnians. 

1  '"AND  at  this  time2  it  came  to  pass  that 
the  great  famine  *  took  place  in  Judea,  in  which 
the  queen  1  lelen,4  having  purchased  grain  from 
Egypt   with    large    sums,   distributed   it    to    the 


2  You  will  find  this  statement  also  in  agree- 
ment with  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  where 

it  is  said  that  the  disciples  at  Antioch,  "  each 

according    to    his    ability,   determined   to    send 

relief  to  the  brethren  that  dwelt  in  Judea  ;  which 

also  they  did,  and  sent  it  to  the  elders  by 

3  the  hands  of  Barnabas   and    Paul."''1      But 
splendid    monuments <;    of   this    Helen,    of 

whom  the  historian  has  made  mention,  are  stil 
shown  in  the  suburbs  of  the  city  which  is  now 
called  /Klia.7  But  she  is  said  to  have  been 
queen  of  the  Adiabeni.8 

ronism  which  every  reader  had  the  means  of  exposing —  for  the 
sake  of  making  a  point  in  confirmation  of  the  narrative  of  Luke 
Had  he  been  conscious  of  the  discrepancy,  he  would  certainly  hav( 
endeavored  to  reconcile  the  two  accounts,  and  it  would  not  have  re 
quired  a  great  amount  of  ingenuity  or  research  to  discover  in  the 
pages  of  Josephus  himself  a  sufficiently  plausible  reconciliation 
The  only  reasonable  explanation  of  Eusebius'  anachronism  is  hi 
carelessness,  which  caused  him  to  fall  into  many  blunders  as  bad  a 
the  present,  especially  in  questions  of  chronology.  He  read,  in  thi 
Acts,  of  Theudas;  he  read,  in  Josephus,  of  a  similar  character  of  th. 
same'  name;  he  identified  the  two  hastily,  and  without  a  thought  o 
any  chronological  difficulty  in  the  case.  He  quotes  the  passage  fron 
the  Acts  very  freely,  and  possibly  without  recollecting  that  it  occur 
several  chapters  before  the  account  of  the  famine  and  of  the  othe 
events  which  happened  in  the  time  of  Claudius. 

1  Josephus,  Ant.  XX.  5.  2. 

2  In  the  times  of  these  procurators,  Cuspius  Fadus  and   libenu 

3  Josephus  had  already  mentioned  this  famine  in  the  same  boo 
of  his  Ant.,  chap.  2,  §  5. 

4  Josephus  gives  an  extensive  account  of  this  Helen  and  ol  he 
son  Izates  in  the  Ant.  XX.  2.     Helen  was  the  wife  of  the  km 
Monabaztis  of  Adiabene,  and  the  mother  of  Izates,  his  successor 
lioth  Izates  and  Helen  embraced  the  Jewish  religion,  and  the  lattc 
happening  to  come  to  Jerusalem  in  the  time  of  the  famine,  did  a  grea 
deal  to  relieve  the  distress,  and  was  seconded  in  her  benefactions  b 
her  son.     After  their  death  the  bones  of  both  mother  and  son  wer 
brought  to  Jerusalem   and    buried  just   outside  of  the  walls,   wher 
Helen  had  erected  three  pyramids  (Jos.  Ant.  XX.  4.  3). 

0  Acts  xi.  29,  30.  The  passage  in  Acts  has  Saul  instead  of  Pau 
But  the  change  made  by  Eusebius  is  a  very  natural  one. 

8  "  Pausanias  (in  Arcadicis)  speaks  of  these  great  monumen 
of  Helen  and  compares  them  to  the  tomb  of  Mausolus.  Jerome,  toe 
testifies  that  they  were  standing  in  his  time.  Helen  had  besides 
palace  in  Jerusalem"  (Stroth). 

7  yElia  was  the  heathen  city  built  on  the  site  of  Jerusalem  1 
Hadrian  (see  below,  Bk,  IV,  chap.  6). 

VOL.  I. 


Simon  Magus.1 

BUT  faith  in  our  Saviour  and  Lord  Jesus       1 
Jhrist  having  now  been  diffused  among  all 
nen,-  the  enemy  of  man's  salvation  contrived  a 

•Ian  for  seizing  the  imperial  city  for  himself. 
_Ie  conducted  thither  the  above-mentioned 
Simon/ aided  him  in  his  deceitful  arts,  led  many 

f  the  inhabitants  of  Rome  astray,  and  thus 
Drought  them  into  his  own  power.     This  is       2 

tated  by  Justin/  one  of  our  distinguished 
vriters  who  lived  not  long  after  the  time  of  the 

postles.  Concerning  him  I  shall  speak  in  the 
proper  place/'  Take  and  read  the  work  of  this 

R  Adiabene  was  probably  a  small  province  lying  between  the 
Tigris,  Lycus,  and  the  Gordiaean  Mountains  (see  Dion  Cassius, 
,XVIII.),  but  before  the  time  of  Pliny,  according  to  Vaux  (in 
smith's  Diet,  of  Greek  and  Roman  Geography},  the  word  was 
isecl  in  a  wider  sense  to  indicate  Assyria  in  general  (see  Pliny,  //.  N. 
VI.  12,  and  Ammianus  Marcellinus,  XXI11.  6) .  Izates  was  king  of 
Vdiabene  in  the  narrower  sense. 

1  It  is  justly  remarked  by  Reuterdahl  that  no  chapters  of  Euse- 
niis'  History  are  so  imperfect  and  unsatisfactory  as  those  which  re- 
ate  to  heresies,  but  that  this  is  to  be  ascribed  more  to  the  age  than  to 
he  author.  A  right  understanding  of  heresies  and  an  appreciation 
if  any  truth  which  they  might  contain  was  utterly  impossible  to 
nen  who  looked  upon  heresy  as  the  work  of  the  devil,  and  all  here- 
ics  as  his  chosen  tools.  Eusebius  has  been  condemned  by  some, 
jecause  he  gives  his  information  about  heretics  only  from  second 
land,  and  quotes  none  of  them  directly;  but  it  must  be  remembered 
that  this  method  was  by  no  means  peculiar  to  Eusebius,  and,  more- 
over, it  is  highly  probable  that  he  did  not  have  access  to  any  of  their 
works  The  accounts  of  the  heretics  given  by  Iremeus,  Hippolytus, 
and  others  would  of  course  be  preserved,  but  the  writings  of  heretics 
themselves  would  be  piously  excluded  as  completely  as  possible  from 
•ill  Christian  libraries,  and  the  knowledge  of  them  cannot  have  re- 
mained long  in  the  Church.  The  sources  upon  which  we  have  to 
rely  at  the  present  day  for  a  knowledge  of  these  heresies  furnish  an 
illustration  of  this.  We  know  them  almost  solely  through  their  ene- 
mies, and  Eusebius  knew  them  in  the  same  way  and  very  likely  for 
the  same  reason.  ~  See  chap.  3,  note  I. 

'  Simon  Magus,  of  whom  mention  is  first  made  in  Acts  viu.  9  sqq. 
(quoted  above,  in  chap,  i),  played  a  very  prominent  role  in  early 
Church  history.  His  life  has  been  so  greatly  embellished  with 
legends  that  it  is  very  difficult  to  extract  a  trustworthy  account  ol 
him.  Indeed  the  Tubingen  school,  as  well  as  some  other  modern 
critics,  have  denied  altogether  the  existence  of  such  a  personage,  and 
have  resolved  the  account  of  him  into  a  Jewish  Christian  fiction  pro- 
liiced  in  hostility  to  the  apostle  Paul,  who  under  the  mask  of  Simon 
was  attacked  as  the  real  heretic.  But  this  identification  of  Paul  and 
Simon  rests  upon  a  very  slender  foundation,  as  many  passages  can 
be  adduced  in  which  the  two  are  expressly  distinguished,  and  inclec 
the  thought  of  identifying  Paul  and  Simon  seems  never  to  have 
occurred  "to  the  writer  of  the  Recognitions.  The  most  that  can  be 
said  is  that  the  author  of  the  Homilies  gives,  and  without  doi 
purposely,  some  Pauline  traits  to  his  picture  of  Simon,  but  this  doe 
not  imply  that  he  makes  Simon  no  more  than  a  mask  for  1  aul  (ct. 
the  words  of  Salmon  in  his  article,  Clementine  Literature,  in  the 
Diet,  of  Christ.  Hio?.  Vol.  1.  p.  576).  The  original  of  Simon  then 
is  not  to  be  found  in  Paul.  The  third  century  fiction  is  based  upon  : 
real  historic  person  whose  actual  existence  must  be  assumed  te 
account  for  the  early  notices  of  him  in  the  Acts  and  in  Justin  Martyr, 
as  well  as  the  common  tradition  of  him  among  all  parties  in  the 
Church.  Salmon  considers  Simon  of  Gitton  —  the  basis  of  the  ac- 
count of  Justin  Martyr  and  of  all  the  later  Simon  legends  — a  second 
century  Gnostic  distinct  from  the  Simon  mentioned  in  the  Acts  (see 
his  excellent  article  Simon  Magus,  in  the  Diet,  of  Christ.  Hi.'g.  IV. 
p  681  sqq  ).  In  the  Pseudo-Clementines  Simon  is  represented  a: 
traveling  widely  and  spreading  his  errors  in  all  directions,  while 
Peter  follows  him  for  the  purpose  of  exposing  his  impostures  and 
refutes  him  repeatedly  in  public  disputations,  until  at  length 
conquers  him  completely  in  Rome,  and  Simon  ends  his  life  by  su 
His  death,  as  well  as  his  life,  is  recorded  in  various  conflicting  and 
fabulous  traditions  (see  note  9,  below).  For  ancient  accounts  ot 
Simon,  see  Justin  Martyr,  Apol.  I.  26  and  ^  and  7>W.  r.  1  ,-yfiu  . 
CXX.;  the  Pseudo-Clementine  Homilies^  '\ff^'^  }^_ 

•\<ir.  (,1'iites,  II.  12,    ixc.;    .-tin    vi    L"*    "'.'•;."' 

l',,,,l    (Ante-Nicene   l-'athtrs.  Am.  ed.  VIII.   p.  477   sqqO : 
l.hanins,  H<er.  XXL;   and  Theodoret,   J<a?<.   1. 
Lipsius,  article  in  Schinkel's  Ribel-Lexicon,  Vol.  V. 
1  In  his  Apologv,  I-  26,  56. 
5  In  Bk.  IV.  chaps.  8,  n,  16-18. 


[ii.  13. 

man,  who  in  the  first  Apology"  which  he  addressed 
to  Antonine  in  behalf  of  our  religion  writes 

3  as  follows  :  "  ''  And   after   the  ascension  of 
the  Lord  into  heaven  the  demons   put  for- 
ward   certain    men    who    said    they   were    gods, 
and   who  were   not  only  allowed  by  you  to  go 
unpersecuted,  but  were  even  deemed  worthy  of 
honors.     One  of  them  was  Simon,  a  Samaritan 
of   the   village   of   ditto, s  who    in    the   reign    of 
Claudius    Cresar '•'    performed    in    your    imperial 
city  some  mighty  acts  of  magic  by  the  art  of 
demons   operating   in  him,  and  was  considered 
a  god,  and  as  a  god  was  honored  by  you  with  a 
statue,  which  was  erected  in  the  river  Tiber,1"  be- 
tween the  two  bridges,  and  bore  this  inscription  in 

the  Latin  tongue,  Simoni  Deo  San  do,   that 

4  is,   7'o  Si/non  the  Holy  GoJ.  u     And   nearly 
all  the  Samaritans  and  a  few  even  of  other 

nations  confess  and  worship  him  as  the  first 
God.  And  there  went  around  with  him  at  that 
time  a  certain  Helena1-  who  had  formerly  been 
a  prostitute  in  Tyre  of  Plnenicia  ;  and  her  they 
call  the  first  idea  that  proceeded  from  him."l: 

i:  On  Justin's  Apology,  see  below,  Bk.  IV.  chap.  iS,  note  3. 

•    |ustin'-,  Apology,  \.  yd. 

s  Gitton  was  a  village  of  Samaria,  near  Flavia  Neapolis  (the  mod- 
ern  Nablus),  and  is  identified  by  Robinson  with  the  present  village 
of  Knryet  Jit  (see  Robinson's  lUbiica!  Researches,  111.  p.  114, 
note).  Some  have  doubted  the  accuracy  of  Justin's  report,  for  the 
reason  that  Josephus  (Ant.  XXII.  7.  2)  mentions  a  magician  named 
Simon,  of  about  the  same  date,  who  was  born  in  Cyprus.  There 
was  a  town  called  KITIOI'  in  Cyprus,  and  it  lias  been  thought  that 
Justin  may  have  mistaken  this  place  for  the  Samaritan  Gitton.  Hut 
even  if  we  assume  the  identity  of  the  two  Simons,  as  many  critics  do, 
it  is  less  likely  that  Justin,  a  native  of  Samaria,  was  mistaken  upon 
a  question  concerning  his  own  country,  than  that  Josephus  was. 
Simon's  activity  may  have  extended  to  Cyprus,  in  which  case  Jo- 
sephus might  easily  have  mistaken  his  birthplace. 

'•'  Justin  here  assigns  Simon's  visit  to  Rome  to  the  reign  of 
Claudius  (41-54  A.D.),  as  Iremeus  also  does.  Other  accounts  as- 
sign it  to  the  reign  of  Nero,  but  all  differ  as  to  the  details  of  his 
death;  suicide,  death  from  injuries  received  while  trying  to  fly,  vol- 
untary burial  in  expectation  of  rising  again  on  the  third  day,  &c., 
are  reported  in  different  traditions.  All,  however,  agree  that  he 
visited  Rome  at  some  time  or  another. 

'"  That  is,  on  the  island  which  lies  in  the  middle  of  the  Tiber,  a 
short  distance  below  the  Vatican,  and  which  now  bears  the  name 
[sola  Tiberiana,  or  <// .V.  S,-!'<istiano. 

11  In  1574  a  statue,  bearing  the  inscription  Semnni  Sanco  dco 
fidio,  tic.,  was  found  in  the  place  described  by  Justin  Martyr,  but 
this  statue  was  erected  to  the  Sabine  divinity  Semo  Sancus.  It  is 
therefore  highly  probable  that  Justin  mistook  this  statue  for  a  statue 
of  Simon  Magus.  This  is  now  the  commonly  accepted  view,  though 
the  translator  of  Justin  Martyr  in  the  Ante-Niccnc  leathers  ven- 
tures to  dispute  it  (see  the  Am.ed.  Vol.  I.  p.  171,  note).  The  report 
is  given  a  second  time  by  Justin  in  his  Apol.  56,  and  also  by  Ire- 
na;us,  I.  23.  i  (who,  however,  simply  says  "  It  is  said,"  and  may 
have  drawn  his  knowledge  only  from  Justin  Martyr)  and  by  Tertul- 
lian,  Af>ol.  chap.  13.  The  last  named  is  in  general  a  poor  authority, 
even  if  he  be  independent  of  Justin  at  this  point,  which  is  not  prob- 
able. Hippolytus,  who  lived  at  Rome,  and  who  gives  us  an  account 
of  the  death  of  Simon  (Bk.  VII.  chap,  15),  says  nothing  about  the 
statue,  and  his  silence  is  a  strong  argument  against  it. 

'-  A  similar  story  is  told  of  this  Helen  by  Irenseus,  I.  23  ;  by 
Hippolytus,  VI.  15  ('who  adds  some  important  particulars);  by 
Tertullian,  De  Atiima,  34;  by  Epiphanius,  H<rr.  21;  and  by  Theo- 
doret,  Hifr.  /-'a/'.  I.  i ;  compare  also  Origen,  ( "iintra  Ci'lsiim,  V.  62. 
Simon  taught  that  this  Helen  was  the  first  conception  of  his  mind, 
the  mother  of  all  things,  the  impersonation  of  the  divine  intelligence, 
&c.  The  Simonians,  according  to  Irenajus  (I.  23.  4),  and  Hippolytus 
(VI.  15;  see  chap.  14,  note  8),  had  images  of  Simon  and  Helen  whom 
they  honored  as  Jupiter  and  Minerva.  Simon's  doctrines  and  prac- 
tice, as  recorded  by  these  Fathers,  show  some  of  the  general  concep- 
tions common  to  all  the  Gnostic  systems,  but  exhibit  a  crude  and 
undeveloped  form  of  Gnosticism.  Upon  Helen,  see  Salmon,  in 
the  Diet,  of  Christ.  Biog.  II.  p.  880  sq.,  and  all  the  works  upon 
Simon  Magus. 

13  This  conception  of  the  idea  (en-oca)  is  thoroughly  Gnostic, 
and  plays  an  important  part  in  all  the  Gnostic  systems.  Most  of 
these  systems  had  a  dualistic  element  recognizing  the  5m-n/Lu?  and 
the  tci'oia  as  the  original  principles  from  whose  union  all  beings 

Justin  relates  these  things,  and  Irenrens  also  5 
agrees  with  him  in  the  first  book  of  his  work, 
Against  Heresies,  where  he  gives  an  account  of 
the  man"  and  of  his  profane  and  impure  teach- 
. It  would  be  superfluous  to  quote  his  account 
here,  for  it  is  possible  for  those  who  wish  to 
know  the  origin  and  the  lives  and  the  false  doc- 
trines of  each  of  the  heresiarchs  that  have  followed 
him,  as  well  as  the  customs  practiced  by  them 

,  to  find  them  treated  at  length  in  the 
above-mentioned  work  of  Ircmeus.  We  6 
have  understood  that  Simon  was  the  author 
of  all  heresy.1'"'  Krom  his  time  down  to  the 
present  those  who  have  followed  his  heresy  have 
feigned  the  sober  philosophy  of  the  Christians, 
which  is  celebrated  among  all  on  account  of  its 
purity  of  life.  But  they  nevertheless  have'  em- 
braced again  the  superstitions  of  idols,  which 
they  seemed  to  have  renounced  ;  and  they  fall 
down  before  pictures  and  images  of  Simon  him- 
self and  of  the  above-mentioned  Helena  who 
was  with  him  ;  and  they  venture  to  worship 
them  with  incense  and  sacrifices  and  liba- 
tions, lint  those  matters  which  they  keep  7 
more  secret  than  these,  in  regard  to  which 
they  say  that  one  upon  first  hearing  them  would 
be  astonished,  and,  to  use  one  of  the  written 
phrases  in  vogue  among  them,  would  be  con- 
founded,"5 are  in  truth  full  of  amazing  things, 
and  of  madness  and  folly,  being  of  such  a  sort 
that  it  is  impossible  not  only  to  commit  them  to 
writing,  but  also  for  modest  men  even  to  utter 
them  with  the  lips  on  account  of  their  ex- 
cessive baseness  and  lewdness.17  For  what-  8 
ever  could  be  conceived  of,  viler  than  the 
vilest  thing  —  all  that  has  been  outdone  by  this 
most  abominable  sect,  which  is  composed  of 
those  who  make  a  sport  of  those  miserable 
females  that  are  literally  overwhelmed  with  all 
kinds  of  vices.18 

emanated.  These  general  conceptions  appeared  in  all  varieties  of 
forms  in  the  different  systems.  14  Irenajus  ai/r.  HUT.  I.  23. 

'"'  See  note  3,  above.  Vl  0a/u/3<o0r)<r€<r0ai. 

17  This  was  the  general  opinion  of  the  early  Fathers,  all  of  whom 
picture  Gnosticism  as  a  wilderness  of  absurdities  and  nonsense:  and 
Iren;eus,  Hippolytus,  and  others  undertake  its  refutation  only  for  the 
purpose  of  exposing  these  absurdities.  It  is  treated  by  none  of  them 
as  an  intelligent  speculation  with  a  foundation  iu  reason  or  sense. 
This  thorough  misunderstanding  of  the  nature  and  aim  of  Gnosticism 
has  been  perpetuated  in  our  day  by  many  writers  upon  the  subject. 
\eander  was  the  first  to  attempt  a  thoroughly  philosophical  treat- 
ment of  it  (in  his  Gcnetische  Etitwickelintg  d.gnost.  Systfiiif,  Ber- 
lin, 1818),  and  since  that  time  the  subject  has  been  treated  intelli- 
gently and  discriminatingly  by  many  writers,  e.g.  Baur,  I.ipsius, 
I.ightfoot,  Salmon,  and  especially  Harnack,  who  has  grasped  the 
true  principle  of  Gnosticism  perhaps  more  fully  than  any  one  else. 
See  his  Dogmengeschichte,  I.  p.  158  sqq. 

H  This  was  true  of  the  Simonians,  who  were  very  immoral  and 
licentious,  and  of  some  other  Gnostic  sects,  as  e.g.  the  Ophites,  the 
Carpocratians,  Sic.  But  many  of  the  Gnostics,  e.g.  Marcion  (but 
see  below,  IV.  u,  note  24),  Saturninus,  Tatian,  &c.,  went  to  the  oppo- 
site extreme,  teaching  a  rigid  and  gloomy  asceticism.  Underlying 
both  of  these  extremes  we  perceive  the  same  principle  —  a  dualism 
of  matter  and  spirit,  therefore  of  body  and  mind  —  the  former  con- 
sidered as  the  work  of  the  devil,  and  therefore  to  be  despised  and 
abused;  the  latter  as  divine,  and  therefore  to  be  honored  above  all 
else.  The  abhorrence  of  the  body,  and  of  matter  and  nature  in  gen- 
eral, logically  led  to  one  of  the  two  opposite  results,  asceticism  or 
antinomianism,  according  to  the  character  and  instincts  of  the  per- 
son himself.  Sec  Schaff,  Church  Hist.  II.  p.  457  sqq.  The  Fathers, 
in  their  hatred  of  all  forms  of  heresy,  naturally  saw  no  good  in  any 




The  Preaching  of  the  Apostle  Peter  in  Rome. 

1  Tin-,  evil   power,1  who   hates   all   that   is 
good  and  plots  against  the  salvation  of  men, 

constituted   Simon  at  that  time  the   father  and 

author  of  such  wickedness,2  as  if  to  make  him  a 

mighty    antagonist    of   the    great,    ins] tired 

2  apostles  of  our   Saviour.     For  that  divine 
and  celestial  grace  which  co-operates  with 

its  ministers,  by  their  appearance  and  presence, 

quickly  extinguished  the  kindled  (lame  of  evil, 

and  humbled  and  cast  down  through  them  "every 

high   thing   that   exalted   itself   against   the 

3  knowledge   of  God."15     Wherefore   neither 
the  conspiracy  of  Simon  nor  that  of  any  of 

the  others  who  arose  at  that  period  could  ac- 
complish anything  in  those  apostolic  times.  For 
everything  was  conquered  and  subdued  by  the 
splendors  of  the  truth  and  by  the  divine  word 
itself  which  had  but  lately  begun  to  shine  from 
heaven  upon  men,  and  which  was  then  flourish- 
ing upon  earth,  and  dwelling  in  the  apos- 

4  ties  themselves.     Immediately4  the  above- 
mentioned  impostor  was  smitten  in  the  eye? 

of  his  mind  by  a  divine  and  miraculous  flash, 
and  after  the  evil  deeds  done  by  him  had  beer 
first  detected  by  the  apostle  Peter  in  Judea, 
he  fled  and  made  a  great  journey  across  the  ser 
from  the  East  to  the  West,  thinking  that  only 
thus  could  he  live  according  to  his  mind 

5  And  coming  to  the  city  of  Rome,0  by  the 
mighty  co-operation  of  that  power  which 

was  lying  in  wait  there,  he  was  in  a  short  time 

so  successful  in  his  undertaking  that  those  who 

dwelt  there  honored  him  as  a  god  by  the 

6  erection  of  a  statue.7     But  this  did  not  las 
long.      For  immediately,  during   the   reigi 

of  Claudius,  the  all-good  and  gracious  Provi 
dence,  which  watches  over  all  things,  led  Peter 
that  strongest  and  greatest  of  the  apostles,  anc 
the  one  who  on  account  of  his  virtue  was  the 

of  them,  and  heretics  were  therefore  indiscriminately  accused  of  im 
morality  and  licentiousness  in  their  worst  forms. 

1  See  the  previous  chapter,  note  i. 

2  See  chap,  i,  note  25.  3  2  Cor.  x.  5. 

4  The  significance  of  the  word  "  immediately  "  as  employed  her 
is  somewhat  dark.     There  is  no  event  described   in   the  precedin 
context  with  which  it  can  be  connected.     I  am  tempted  to  think  tha 
Eusebius  may  have  been  using  at  this  point  some  unknown  source 
and   that   the    word    "  immediately "    refers   to   an  encounter   whic 
Simon  had  had  with    Peter    (perhaps  his  Csesarean  discussion,  me) 
tioned  in  the  Clementines),  of  which  an  account  was  given  in  tl 
document   employed    by    Eusebius.     The    figure   employed  here 
most  remarkable. 

5  Acts    viii.  9    sqq.     This   occurred   in    Samaria^  not   in   Jude 
proper,  but  Eusebius  evidently  uses  the  word  "Judea  "in  a  wide  sens 
to  indicate  the  Roman  province  of  Judea,  which  included  also  Sam 
ria.     It  is  not  impossible,  especially  if  Eusebius  is  quoting  here  fro 
a  written  source,  that  some  other  encounter  of  Simon  and  Peter 
referred  to.     Such  a  one  e.g.  as  is  mentioned  in  the  Apostolic  Co, 
s  tit, it  ions,  VI.  8. 

0  Rome  was  a  great  gathering  place  of  heretics  and  schismatic 
They  were  all  attracted  thither  by  the  opportunities  for  propaga 
dism  which  the  city  afforded,  and  therefore  Eusebius,  with  li 
transcendental  conception  of  heresy,  naturally  makes  it  the  especi 
seat  of  the  devil. 

7  See  above,  chap.  13,  note  n. 

leaker  for  all  the  others,  to  Rome s  against  this 
reat  corrupter  of  life.  He  like  a  noble  com- 
lander  of  God,  clad  in  divine  armor,  carried 
ic  costly  merchandise  of  the  light  of  the  under- 
tanding  from  the  East  to  those  who  dwelt  in 
ic  West,  proclaiming  the  light  itself,  and  the 
•ord  which  brings  salvation  to  souls,  and  preach- 
ig  the  kingdom  of  heaven. <J 


The  Gospel  according  to  Mark. 

AND    thus    when    the    divine    word    had 
nade  its  home  among  them,1  the  power  of 

Upon  the  historic  truth  of  Peter's  visit  to  Rome,  see  below, 
hap.  25,  note  7.  Although  we  may  accept  it  as  certain  that  he  did 
isit  Rome,  and  that  he  met  his  death  there,  it  is  no  less  certain  that 
.e  did  not  reach  there  until  late  in  the  reign  of  Nero.  The  tradition 
hat  he  was  for  twenty-five  years  bishop  of  Rome  is  first  recorded  by 
crome  (d?  vir.  ill.  c.  i),  and  since  his  time  has  been  almost  uni- 
ersally  accepted  in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  though  in  recent 
fears  many  more  candid  scholars  of  that  communion  acknowledge 
hat  so  long  an  episcopate  there  is  a  fiction.  The  tradition  undoubt- 
dly  took  its  rise  from  the  statement  of  Justin  Martyr  (quoted  in  the 
>revious  chapter)  that  Simon  Magus  came  to  Rome  during  the  reign 
if  Claudius.  Tradition,  in  the  time  of  Eusebius,  commonly  con- 
lected  the  Roman  visits  of  Simon  and  of  Peter;  and  consequently 
iusebius,  accepting  the  earlier  date  for  Simon's  arrival  in  Rome, 
mite  naturally  assumed  also  the  same  date  for  Peter's  arrival  there, 
ilthough  Justin  does  not  mention  Peter  in  connection  with  Simon  in 
he  passage  which  Eusebius  quotes.  The  assumption  that  Peter 
ook  up  his  residence  in  Rome  during  the  reign  of  Claudius  contra- 
licts  all  that  we  know  of  Peter's  later  life  from  the  New  Testament 
nd  from  other  early  writers.  In  44  A.D.  he  was  in  Jerusalem  (ac- 
..ording  to  Acts  xii.  3)  ;  in  51  he  was  again  there  (according  to  Acts 
\v.) ;  and  a  little  later  in  Antioch  (according  to  Gal.  i.  n  sq.). 
Moreover,  at  some  time  during  his  life  he  labored  in  various  prov- 
nces  in  Asia  Minor,  as  we  learn  from  his  first  epistle,  and  probably 
wrote  that  epistle  from  Babylon  on  the  Euphrates  (see  chap.  15,  note 
7).  At  any  rate,  he  cannot  have  been  in  Rome  when  Paul  wrote  his 
epistle  to  the  Romans  (57  or  58  A. u.) ,  for  no  mention  is  made  of 
lirn  among  the  brethren  to  whom  greetings  are  sent.  Nor  can  he 
iave  been  there  when  Paul  wrote  from  Rome  during  his  captivity 
(fn  or  62  to  63  or  64  A.D.)  .  We  have,  in  fact,  no  trace  of  him  in 
Rome,  except  the  extra-liiblical  but  well-founded  tradition  (see  chap. 
23,  note  7)  that  he  met  his  death  there.  We  may  assume,  then,  that 
lie  did  not  reach  Rome  at  any  rate  until  shortly  before  his  death; 
that  is,  shortly  before  the  summer  of  64  A.n.  As  most  of  the  ac- 
counts put  Simon  Magus'  visit  to  Rome  in  the  reign  of  Nero  (see 
above,  chap.  13,  note  9),  so  they  make  him  follow  Peter  thither 
(as  he  had  followed  him  everywhere,  opposing  and  attacking  him), 
instead  of  precede  him,  as  Eusebius  does.  Eusebius  follows  Justin 
in  giving  the  earlier  date  for  Simon's  visit  to  Rome;  but  he  goes 
beyond  Justin  in  recording  his  encounter  there  with  Peter,  which 
neither  Justin  nor  Irenseus  mentions.  The  earlier  date  for  Simon's 
visit  is  undoubtedly  that  given  by  the  oldest  tradition.  Afterward, 
when  Peter  and  Paul  were  so  prominently  connected  with  the  reign 
of  Nero,  the  visit  of  Simon  was  postponed  to  synchronize  with  the 
presence  of  the  two  apostles  in  Rome.  A  report  of  Simon's  meeting 
with  Peter  in  Rome  is  given  first  by  Hippolytus  (VI.  15) ;  afterward 
by  Arnobius  (II.  12),  who  docs  not  describe  the  meeting;  by  the 
Ap.  Const.,  the  Clementine  Recognitions  and  Homilies,  and  the 
Acts  of  Hie  Apostles  Peter  and  Paul.  It  is  impossible  to  tell  from 
what  source  Eusebius  drew  his  information.  Neither  Justin,  Ire- 
na;us,  nor  Tertullian  mentions  it.  Hippolytus  and  Arnobius  and 
the  Apf>.  Const,  give  too  much,  as  they  give  accounts  of  his  death, 
which  Eusebius  does  not  follow.  As  to  this,  it  might,  however,  be 
said  that  these  accounts  are  so  conflicting  that  Eusebius  may  have 
omitted  them  entirely,  while  yet  recording  the  meeting.  Still,  if  he 
had  read  Hippolytus,  he  could  hardly  have  omitted  entirely  his  in- 
teresting account.  Arnobius  and  Tertullian,  who  wrote  in  Latin,  he 
did  not  read,  and  the  Clementines  were  probably  too  late  for  him; 
at  any  rate,  they  cannot  have  been  the  source  of  his  account,  which 
differs  entirely  from  theirs.  It  is  highly  probable,  therefore,  that  he 
followed  Justin  and  Iremeus  as  far  as  they  go,  and  that  he  recorded 
the  meeting  with  Peter  in  Rome  as  a  fact  commonly  accepted  in  his 
time,  and  one  for  which  he  needed  no  written  authority;  or  it  is 
possible  that  he  had  another  source,  unknown  to  us,  as  suggested 
above  (note  4). 

'•>  A  most  amazing ;  mixture  of  metaphors.    This  sentence  limn, 
an  excellent  illustration  of  Eusebius'  rhetorical  style. 

1  The  origin  of  the  Church  at  Rome  is  shrouded  in  mystery. 
Eusebius  gives  the  tradition  which  rules  in  the  Catholic  ('huivh, 
viz.:  that  Christianity  was  introduced  into  Rome  by  Peter,  who 

I   2 



Simon  was  quenched  and  immediately  destroyed, 
together  with  the  man  himself.-  And  so  greatly 
did  the  splendor  (if  piety  illumine  the  minds  of 
Peter's  hearers  that  they  were  not  satisfied  with 
hearing  once  only,  and  were  not  content  with 
the  unwritten  teaching  of  the  divine  (ii)spel,  but 
with  all  sorts  of  entreaties  they  besought  Mark.' 
a  follower  of  Teter,  and  the  one  whose  Gospel 
is  extant,  that  he  would  leave  them  a  written 
monument  of  the  doetrine  which  had  been 
orally  communicated  to  them.  Nor  did  they 
cease  until  they  had  prevailed  with  the  man, 
and  had  thus  become  the  occasion  of  the  writ- 
ten Gospel  which  bears  the  name  of  Mark.' 

went  there  during  the  reign  of  Claudius.  Hut  this  tradition  is  suf- 
ficiently disproved  by  history.  The  origin  of  the  C  hurch  was  due  to 
unknown  persons,  though  it  is  possible  we  may  obtain  a  hint  of  them 
in  tin.-  Andronicus  and  Jimia  of  Romans  xvi.  7,  who  arc  mentioned 
as  apostles,  and  who  were  therefore,  according  to  the  usage  of  the 
word  in  Paul's  writings,  persons  that  introduced  Christianity  into 
;.  new  place  —  missionaries  proper,  who  did  not  work  on  others' 

'-'  See  chap.  12,  note  9,  and  chap.  14,  note  8. 

•>  John  Mark,  sou  of  Mary  (Acts  xii.  12),  a  sister  of  Barnabas 
(Col.  iv.  10),  was  a  companion  of  Paul  and  Barnabas  m  their  mis- 
sionary journeys,  and  afterward  a  companion  of  Barnabas  alone 
(Acts  xv.  39),  and  still  later  was  with  1'anl  again  in  Koine  (Col.  iv. 
10  and  Philemon  24),  and  with  Peter  when  he  wrote  his  first  epistle 
(i  Pet.  v.  i -,).  For  the  later  traditions  concerning  Mark,  sec  the 
next  chapter,  note  i. 

1  That  Mark  wrote  the  second  Gospel  under  the  influence  of 
Pet'-r,  or  as  a  record  of  what  he  had  heard  from  him,  is  the  uni- 
versal' tradition  of  antiquity.  Papias,  in  the  famous  and  much- 
disputed  passage  (quoted  by  Kusebius,  I1T.  39,  below) ,  is  the  first 

I.  p.  252,  which  refers  the  avrov  to  Christ,  is  incorrect;  compare 
Weiss, " iV.  7\  Kiiili-it.-iii^y.  44,  note  4).  Iren.-uus  (Ail-'.  IJ</-r. 
III.  IT.  i,  quoted  below,  V.  8.  2),  Tertullian  (Aih>.  Marcipnem,  I\  . 
5),  and  Origen  (quou-d  below,  VI.  25)  confirm  the  tradition,  which 
is  repeated  over  and  over  again  by  the  Fathers. 

The  question  as  to  the  real  authorship  of  our  second  Gospel,  or 
rather  as  to  its  composition  and  its  relation  to  Matthew  and  Luke,  is 
a  very  difficult  one.  The  relationship  of  the  three  synoptical  Gospels 
was  first  discussed  by  Augustine  (l)e  Consctisit  Evangelistarum} , 
who  defended  the  traditional  order,  but  made  Mark  dependent  upon 
Matthew.  This  view  prevailed  until  the  beginning  of  the  present 
century,  when  the  problem  was  attacked  anew,  and  since  then  it  has 
been  the  crux  of  the  literary  criticism  of  the  Bible.  The  three  have 
been  held  to  be  dependent  upon  each  other,  and  every  possible  order 
has  found  its  advocates;  a  common  source  has  been  assumed  for  the 
three-  the  Hebrew  Matthew,  the  Gospel  according  ti>  the  Hebrew!. 
see  P,k.  III.  chap.  25,  note  24) ,  our  canonical  Gospel  of  Mark,  or  ai 
original  Mark,  resembling  the  present  one;  a  number  of  fragmentary 
documents  have  been  assumed;  while  others,  finally,  have  admitted 
only  oral  tradition  as  the  basis.  According  to  Baur's  tendency 
theory,  Matthew  (polemically  Jewish-Christian)  came  first,  followed 
by  an  original  I, uke  (polemically  Pauline-Christian),  then  by  oui 
Mark,  which  was  bnsed  upon  both  and  written  in  the  interest  of  neu- 
trality, and  lastly  by  our  present  Luke,  designed  as  a  final  irenicum 
This  view  now  finds  few  advocates.  The  whole  matter  is  still  un- 
settled, but  criticism  seems  to  be  gradually  converging  toward  a 
common  ground  type  (or  rather  two  independent  types)  for  all  three 
while  at  the  same  time  maintaining  the  relative  independence  of  the 
three,  one  toward  the  other.  What  these  ground  types  were,  is  : 
matter  of  still  sharper  dispute,  although  criticism  is  gradually  draw 
ing  their  larger  features  with  more  and  more  certainty  and  clearness 
(The  latest  discussion  upon  the  subject  by  Handmann,  das  Hebr'der 
Eran^-liuiit,  makes  the  two  types  the  "  Ur-Marcus  "  and  the  Cos 
pel  ff  the  //:•/•>-, -7,'\.)  That  in  the  last  analysis,  however,  some 
space  must  still  be  left  for  floating  tradition,  or  for  documents  irre 
ducible  to  the  one  or  two  types,  seems  absolutely  certain.  Fo 
further  information  as  to  the  state  of  discussion  upon  this  intncati 
problem,  see  among  recent  works,  especially  Weiss,  Einleitung,  p 
473  sqq.,  Holtxmann,  Ki>ilrit:tng,\>.  328  sqq.,  and  Schaff,  Ch.  Hist 
I.  575  sqq.,  svhcre  the  literature  down  to  1882  is  given  with  grea 
fullness.  Conservative  opinion  puts  the  composition  of  all  the  syn 
optic  Gospels  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  (for  the  date  o 
Luke,  see  III.  4,  note  12);  but  the  critical  school,  while  throwing  th 
original  type  back  of  that  date,  considers  the  composition  of  on 
present  Gospels  to  have  been  the  gradual  work  of  years,  assumin 

And  they  say  that  Peter,  when  he  had  2 
learned,  through  a  revelation  of  the  Spirit, 
of  that  which  had  been  done,  was  pleased  with 
the  /eal  of  the  men,  and  that  the  work  obtained 
the  sanction  of  his  authority  for  the  purpose  of 
being  used  in  the  churches:'  Clement  in  the 
eighth  book  of  his  Hypotyposes  gives  this  ac- 
count, and  with  him  agrees  the  bishop  of  Hiera- 
polis  named  'Papias."  And  Peter  makes  men- 
tion of  Mark  in  his  first  epistle  which  they  say 
at  he  wrote  in  Rome  itself,  as  is  indicated  by 
lim,  when  he  calls  the  city,  by  a  figure,  P.abylon, 
is  he  does  in  the  following  words  :  "The  church 
hat  is  at  P.abylon,  elected  together  with  you, 
saluteth  you  ;  and  so  doth  Marcus  my  son."  ' 


i\f<trk  first  proclaimed    Cliristianity  to  the  In- 
habitants of  Jlgypt. 

AM>  they  say  that  this  Mark  was  the  first        1 
that   was   sent  to    Kgypt,  and  that  he  pro- 

laimed   the  Gospel  which  he  had  written,  and 
first    established    churches    in   Alexandria.' 
And  the  multitude  of  believers,  both  men       2 
and  women,  that  were  collected  there   at 
the  very  outset,  and  lived  lives  of  the  most  philo- 
sophical and  excessive  asceticism,  was  so  great, 
that    Philo    thought  it  worth  while   to  describe 
their   pursuits,   their   meetings,   their    entertain- 
ments, and  their  whole  manner  of  life."  ' 

ch  we 

that   they  were   not   finally  crystallized  into  the  form   in 
have  them  before  the  second  century. 

••  This  mention  of  the  "  pleasure"  of  Peter,  and  the  "  authority" 
given  by  him  to  the  work  of  Mark,  contradicts  the  account  of  Clem- 
ent to  which  Kusebius  here  appeals  as  his  authority.  In  Bk.  VI. 
chap.  14  he  quotes  from  the  Hypotyposes  of  Clement,  a  passage 
which  must  be  identical  with  the  one  referred  to  in  this  place,  for 
it  is  from  the  same  work  and  the  general  account  is  the  same;  but 
there  Clement  says  expressly,  "  which  when  Peter  understood  he 
neither  directly  hindered  nor  encouraged  it." 

0  The  passage  from  Papias  is  ((noted  below  in   Bk.  III.  chap.  39. 
Papias  is  a  witness  to  the  general  fact   that    Mark  wrote   down  what 
he   had  heard  from    Peter,  but   not    (so  far   as   he    is    extant)    to    the 
details  of  the  account  as  given  by  Kusebius.     Upon   Papias  himself, 
see  Bk.  III.  chap.  39. 

7  i  Pet.  v.  15.  Commentators  are  divided  as  to  the  place  in 
which  Peter  wrote  this  epistle  (compare  Schaff 's  Church  Hist.  I. 
p.  744  sqq.).  The  interpretation  given  by  Kusebius  is  the  patristic 
and  Roman  Catholic  opinion,  and  is  maintained  by  many  Protestant 
commentators.  But  on  the  other  hand  the  literal  use  of  the  word 
"  P.abylon"  is  defended  by  a  great  number  of  the  leading  scholars  of 
the  present  day.  Compare  Weiss,  .V.  T.  Einlcitnng,  p.  433,  note  i. 

1  That  Mark  labored   in   Egypt   is   stated   also   by    Epiphanius 
(lltrr.  LI.  6),  by  Jerome  (ifr  -,'ir.  ill.  8),  by  Nicephorus   (//.  K. 
II.  43),  and  by    the    Acta    Darnafrir,    p.    26    (Tischendorfs   Ada 
Apost.  Apocr.  p.    74),  which   were   written   probably  in  the   third 
century.       Eusebius    gained    his    knowledge    apparently    from   oral 
tradition,     for    he    uses    the    formula,    "they     say"    ($aa\v).      In 
chap.  24,  below,  he  says  that  Annianus  succeeded  Mark  as  a  leader 
of  the  Alexandrian  Church   in  the  eighth  year  of  Nero    (62   A. p.), 
thus  implying  that  Mark  died  in  that  year;   and  Jerome  gives  the 
same  date  for  his  death.     But  if  the  tradition  that  he  wrote  his  Gos- 
pel in  Rome  under  Peter  (or  after  Peter's  death,  as  the  best  tradition 
puts  it,  so  e.g.  Irenaeus)  be  correct,  then  this  date  is  hopelessly 
wrong.     The  varying  traditions  are  at  best  very  uncertain,  and  the 
whole  career  of  Mark,  so  far  as  it  is  not  recorded  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, is  involved  in  obscurity. 

2  See  the  next  chapter. 



Philo' s  Account  of  the  Ascetics  of  Egypt. 

1  IT   is  also  said   that   Philo   in   the  reign  of 
Claudius  became  acquainted  at  Rome  with 

Peter,  who  was  then  preaching  there.1  Nor  is 
this  indeed  improbable,  for  the  work  ot  which 
we  have  spoken,  and  which  was  composed  by 
him  some  years  later,  clearly  contains  those 
rules  of  the  Church  which  are  even  t. 

2  day  observed  among  us.    And  since  he  de- 
scribes as  accurately  as  possible  the  life  ot 

our  ascetics,  it  is  clear  that  he  not  only  knew 
but  that  he  also  approved,  while  he  venerat 
and  extolled,  the  apostolic  men  of  his  time   who 
were  as  it  seems  of  the  Hebrew  race,  and  hence 
observed,  after  the  manner  ol  the  Jews,  the 

3  most  of  the  customs  of  the  ancients.     Ii 
the  work  to  which  he  gave  the  title,  On  < 

Contemplative   Life  or  on  Suppliants^ 

I'hilo    met  Veter   i"   Rome   and    formed  a 
epeated  by  Jerome  (</<•  vir  ill.  "_),  a" 

is   repcaicu   oy  j<_iwi.^.  \,^         •     --.-         -• 
vlio  even  goes  further,  and  says  directly  th: 

1   This  tradition    ll 
acquaintance  with  hii 
Ktr   Pliotins  (  (  'iul    lo       ,  \vo  even  s1-"-^  ""  vllv"  >  ------  —  .,  - 

1'Tuo  became  a  ChriVti,,,      The  tradition  .however   must  he  .  regan  c 
as  citiite  worthless.     It  is  absolutely  certain  from  1  hilp  s  o\v  UN 
and'  from   the   otherwise  numerous  traditions   o  f   antiou,  y      ...  >t   1 
never  was  a  Christian,  and  aside  from  the  report  of   1.   sc    us    i 

firming  in  the  first   place   that   he  will   add   to 
those  things  which  he  is  about  to  relate  nothing 
contrary  to  truth  or  of  his  own  invention/  he  says 
that  these  men  were  called  Therapeute  and  the 
women    that   were    with    them    Therapeutndes. 
e  then  adds  the  reasons  for  such   a  name,  ex- 
aining  it  from  the  fact  that  they  applied  reme- 
es  and  healed  the  souls  of  those  who  came  to 
em,  by  relieving  them  like  physicians,  of  evil 
issions,  or  from  the  fact  that  they  served  and 
orshiped  the   Deity  in  purity  and  smcer- 
y      Whether  I'hilo  himself  gave  them  this 
line,  employing  an  epithet  well  suited  to 
leir  mode  of  life,  or  whether  the   first  ot   them 
e-illy   called    themselves   so    m    the    beginning, 
nee  the  name  of  Christians  was  not  yet  every- 
•here  known,  we   need   not  discuss    here. 
He  bears  witness,  however,  that  first  of  all 
hey  renounce  their  properly.     When  they 
je"in  the  philosophical5  mode  of  life,  he  says 
hey  give  up  their  goods  to  their  relatives,  and 
hen,  renouncing  all  the  cares  of  life,  they  go 
orth  beyond  the  walls  and  dwell  in  lonely  fields 
and  gardens,  knowing  well  that  intercourse  with 
,eople  of  a  different  character   is  unprofitable 
and  harmful.     They  did  this  at   that    time,   as 
seems  probable,  under  the  influence  of  a  si 
ind  ardent  faith,  practicing  in  emulation  the 
>rophets'  mode  of  life,      lA>r  in  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles,  a  work  universally  acknowl- 
edged as  authentic,0  it   is  recorded  that  all  the 

of  Caligul 

h   os  v    H   to  Rome  during  the  .reig 
known  historic  fact,  and  Peter's  visit  to  *™ 
Claudius  being  assumed  as  likewise  historic    s 
note  8),  it  was    not    difficult    to    suppose  a  nice 
(the  ereat  Christian  apostle  and  the  great  Jewis 
to  uivent  for  the  purpose  a  second  visit  of  ?  1  h, 
probable  that  the  ascnption  of  the  work  lie 


work  ^still  extant,  and  is  given  by  Mange  y   II.  47-.^;    ^ 
the  first  writer  to  mention  it,  and  he  identifies  the 
scribed  in  it  with  the  Christian  monks    and  assumes    n  conscqu 
that  monasticism  in  the  form  in  which  he  knew  it  existed        he  a, 
tolic  aee,  and  was  known  and  praised  by  Philo.      fus  opmi 
ceneralty   adopted   by    the    Fathers   (with    the    single   exception 
Photius   (  W.  103,  who  looked  upon  the  Therapeut:e  a 

latter  part  of 




,,denzschnft  x 


s'rlriiten    1  ihrhundcrts  vorhanden  waren,   kaum  aimers 
vene      kann     ,1s  cine,  etwa  am   Knde  des  dritten  Jahr- 
ue     dem  Namen  Philo's,  zu  Gunsten  der  Christ lichen 
•,sste,  als  erstes  (Hied  emes    an  derartige n 
„    Ycichen    I.itteratur-zweige     der    alt  en     Kirche 
,       -  ./H. Lucius'  work  the  ijeviews  o   ^^'J'^ut 

(•      T  .!..     .»       ...,,,.  -1  .  1  i;n  It!-,        \VC 

Sbsr^sri'rf  s?  ;"*'.''« 

developed  a  form  (or  indeed  m  any  form)  m  the  tune  of          <  .     On 



^^Sb€£Hf^  hf  SoSio»  ^as 

shown  tha™  the  work  Dt  Vita  Contemplate  is  the  production  of 

e  km 

C  '^"it'may  fairly  be  doubted  whether  tl 
lin  considerable  that  is  not  in  strict  a 

E  Ss^ss-ss^i..  aa  — 


the  points  of  similarity  between  the  practices  , 

described  here,  and  of  early  Christian  monks, 

sources,  is  very  interesting  (see  p.  138  s?.^       h;      , ,        ...        _ 

cia^'-r^lprLfrh^teans  either  to  do  service  to  the 

cods,  or  to  tend  the  sick. 

o  See  Bk.  VI.  chap.  3,  note  y. 

«  See  Bk.  III.  chap.  4,  note  14- 

,0  unreservedly 
is'  exhibition  of 
Therapeuta:,  as 
,wn  from  other 



[ii.  17- 

companions  of  the  apostles  sold  their  possessions 
and  their  property  and  distributed  to  all  accord- 
ing to  the  necessity  of  each  one,  so  that  no  one 
among  them  was  in  want.  "  For  as  many  as 
were  possessors  of  lands  or  houses,"  as  the  ac- 
count says,  "  sold  them  and  brought  the  prices 
of  the  things  that  were  sold,  and  laid  them  at 
the  apostles'  feet,  so  that  distribution  was  made 
unto  every  man  according  as  he  had  need."  ' 

7  Philo  bears  witness  to  facts  very  much 
like  those  here  described   and    then  adds 

the  following  account  :  *  "  Everywhere  in  the 
world  is  this"  race  '•'  found.  For  it  was  fitting  that 
both  Greek Ua  and  Barbarian  should  share  in 
what  is  perfectly  good.  But  the  race  particu- 
larly abounds  in  Egypt,  in  each  of  its  so-called 
nomes,10  and  especially  about  Alexandria. 

8  The  best  men  from  every  quarter  emigrate, 
as  if  to  a  colony  of  the  Therapeutre's  father- 
land,11 to  a  certain  very  suitable  spot  which  lies 
above  the  lake  Maria1-  upon  a  low  hill  excellently 

situated  on  account  of  its  security  and  the 

9  mildness  of  the  atmosphere."     And  then  a 
little  further  on,  after  describing  the   kind 

of  houses  which  they  had,  he  speaks  as  follows 
concerning  their  churches,  which  were  scattered 
about  here  and  there  : 13  "  In  each  house  there  is 
a  sacred  apartment  which  is  called  a  sanctuary 
and  monastery,11  where,  quite  alone,  they  per- 
form the  mysteries  of  the  religious  life.  They 
bring  nothing  into  it,  neither  drink  nor  food,  nor 
any  of  the  other  things  which  contribute  to  the 
necessities  of  the  body,  but  only  the  laws,  and 
the  inspired  oracles  of  the  prophets,  and  hymns 
M(\  such  other  things  as  augment  and  make 
perfect  their  knowledge  and  piety." 

10  And  after  some   other  matters  he  says  : 1; 
"  The  whole  interval,  from  morning  to  even- 
ing, is  for  them  a  time  of  exercise.     For  they 
read  the  holy   Scriptures,  and  explain  the  phil- 
osophy of  their  fathers  in  an  allegorical  manner 
regarding  the  written  words  as  symbols  of  hid- 
den truth  which  is  communicated  in  obscure 

11  figures.     They  have  also  writings  of  ancien 
men,  who  were  the  founders  of  their  sect 

TI?  or  Mnpeia  Ai>>'7).  The  Lake  Mnreotis  (as  it  is  most  commc 
called)  lies  in  the  northern  part  of  the  Delta,  just  south  of  Ale: 
dria.  It  was  in  ancient  times  much  more  of  a  lake  than  it  is  r 
and  the  description  of  the  climate  as  given  here  is  quite  accurate 

13    Ibid.  U    fftUVflQV  K<"  fAOCaOT»)fH< 

ml  who  left  many  monuments  of  the  allegorical 
nethod.     These  they  use    as  models,  and 
nitate    their    principles."       These    things     12 
eem  to  have   been  stated  by  a  man  who 
lad  heard  them  expounding  their  sacred  writ- 
ngs.      Hut  it  is  highly  probable  that  the  works 
f  the  ancients,  which  he  says  they  had,  were 
he  (iospels  and  the  writings    of  the    apostles, 
md  probably  some  expositions   of   the  ancient 
irophets,  such  as  are  contained  in  the  Epistle 
o   the   Hebrews,   and    in    many  others   of 
Viul's   Epistles.     Then  again  he  writes    as      13 
olknvs    concerning  the  new  psalms  which 
hey  composed  :  1<;""  So  that  they  not  only  spend 
heir  time  in  meditation,  but  they  also  compose 
,ongs   and   hymns  to  Clod  in   every  variety  of 
netre  and  melody,  though  they  divide  them,  of 
course,  into  measures  of  more  than  common 
jolemnity."     The  same  book    contains    an     14 
iccount  of  many  other  things,  but  it  seemed 
lecessary  to  select  those  facts  which  exhibit  the 
Characteristics   of   the    ecclesiastical    mode 
of  life.     But  if  any  one   thinks  that  what      15 
las  been  said  is  not  peculiar  to  the  Gospel 
jolity,  but  that  it  can  be  applied  to  others  be- 
sides those  mentioned,  let  him  be  convinced  by 
the  subsequent  words    of   the    same   author,  in 
which,  if  he  is  unprejudiced,  he  will  find  undis- 
puted  testimony  on    this    subject.     Philo's 
words  are  as  follows  :  "  "  Having  laid  down     16 
temperance  as  a  sort  of  foundation  in  the 
souk  they  build  upon  it  the  other  virtues.     None 
of  them  may  take  food  or  drink  before  sunset, 
since  they  regard  philosophizing  as  a  work  worthy 
of  the  light,  but  attention  to  the  wants  of  the 
body  as  proper  only  in  the  darkness,  and  there- 
fore assign  the  (.lay  to  the  former,  but  to  the 
latter  a   small   portion   of  the   night.     But     17 
some,  in  whom  a  great  desire  for  knowledge 
dwells,  forget  to  take  food  for  three  days  ;  and 
some  are  so  delighted  and  feast  so  luxuriously 
upon  wisdom,  which  furnishes  doctrines  richly 
and  without  stint,  that  they  abstain  even  twice 
as  long  as    this,  and  are  accustomed,  after  six 
days,  scarcely  to  take  necessary  food."     These 
statements    of    Philo    we    regard    as    referring 
clearly  and    indisputably  to  those  of  our  com- 

But  if  after  these  things  any  one  still  obsti-     18 
nately  persists  in  denying  the  reference,  let 
him  renounce  his  incredulity  and  be  convinced 
by  yet  more  striking  examples,  which  are  to  be 
found  nowhere  else  than  in  the  evangelical 
religion  of  the  Christians.18     For  they  say     19 
that  there  were  women  also  with  those  of 
whom  we  are  speaking,  and  that  the  most    of 
them  were   aged    virgins 1<J  who   had    preserved 

..-.  fl'ul.  17  n'itL  §  4- 

me  Tl.  '  J     C    Q 

l';     f/)id  t^CC   JfHf'   §   **. 

"  How  Eusebius,  who  knew  that  Philo  lived  and  wrote  during 

II.  iS.J 



their  chastity,  not  out  of  necessity,  as  some  of 
the  priestesses  among  the  Greeks,""  but  rather  by 
their  own  choice,  through  zeal  and  a  desire  for 
wisdom.  And  that  in  their  earnest  desire  to  live 
with  it  as  their  companion  they  paid  no  atten- 
tion to  the  pleasures  of  the  body,  seeking  not 
mortal  but  immortal  progeny,  which  only  the 

20  pious  soul  is  able  to  bear  of  itself.     Then 
after  a  little   he   adds   still  more  emphati- 
cally :  -'    "They  expound  the  Sacred  Scriptures 
figuratively    by    means    of   allegories.     For   the 
whole  law  seems  to  these  men  to  resemble  a  liv- 
ing organism,  of  which  the  spoken  words  consti- 
tute the  body,  while  the  hidden  sense  stored  up 
within  the  words  constitutes  the  soul.     This  hid- 
den meaning  has  first  been  particularly  studied 
by  this  sect,  which  sees,  revealed  as  in  a  mirror 

of  names,  the    surpassing   beauties   of   the 

21  thoughts."     Why  is  it  necessary  to  add  to 
these  things  their  meetings  and  the  respec- 
tive occupations  of  the  men  and  of  the  women 
during  those  meetings,  and  the  practices  which 
are  even  to  the  present  day  habitually  observed 
by  us,  especially  such  as  we  are  accustomed  to 
observe   at  the    feast  of  the   Saviour's   passion, 

with  fasting  and  night  watching  and  study 

22  of    the    divine    Word.      These    tilings    the 
above-mentioned  author  has  related  in  his 

own  work,  indicating  a  mode  of  life  which  has 
been  preserved  to  the  present  time  by  us  alone, 
recording  especially  the  vigils  kept  in  connection 
with  the  great  festival,  and  the  exercises  per- 
formed during  those  vigils,  and  the  hymns  cus- 
tomarily recited  by  us,  and  describing  how,  while 
one  sings  regularly  in  time,  the  others  listen  in 
silence,  and  join  in  chanting  only  the  close  of 
the  hymns  ;  and  how,  on  the  days  referred  to, 
they  sleep  on  the  ground  on  beds  of  straw,  anc 
to  use  his  own  words,"  "  taste  no  wine  at  all,  nor 
any  flesh,  but  water  is  their  only  drink,  and  the 
relish  with  their  bread  is  salt  and  hyssop.' 

23  In  addition  to  this  i'hilo  describes  the  order 
of  dignities  which  exists  among  those  whc 

carry  on  the  services  of  the  church,  mention  in; 
the  diaconate,  and  the  office  of  bishop,  wind 
takes  the  precedence  over  all  the  others."'  l>u 

vhosoever  desires  a  more    accurate  knowledge 
f  these  matters  may  get  it  from  the  history 
ilready   cited.      But    that    I'hilo,   when    he     24 
vrote    these   things,  had   in   view  the   first 
leralds  of  the  Gospel  and  the  customs  handed 
lown  from  the  beginning  by  the  apostles,  is  clear 
o  every  one. 


The  Works  of  P/ii/o1  that  hare  come  down  to  us. 

Conors  in   language,  comprehensive   in       1 

hought,  sublime  and  elevated  in  his  views 
jf  divine  Scripture,  Philo  has  produced  manifold 
md   various   expositions   of   the    sacred    books. 
)n   the   one   hand,   he   expounds   in   order   the 
.•vents  recorded  in  Genesis  in  the  books  to  which 
ic  gives  the  title  Allegories  of  Hie  S<iere</  Laws  ;'1 
,m  the  other  hand,  he  makes  successive  divisions 
of  the  chapters  in  the-  Scriptures  which  are  the 
subject    of    investigation,   and    gives    objections 
md  solutions,  in  the  books  which  he  quite  suit- 
ably calls  Questions  and  Answers  on  Genesis 
ind  Rxodus?     There   are,   besides   these,       2 
treatises  expressly  worked  out  by  him    on 
•ertain  subjects,  such  as  the  two  books  On  Agri- 
••  ill tn re?  and    the   same    number    On  Dninken- 

.  be  merely  aieidcntal,  and  the  comment  of  Strnlh  upon  this 
•  is  quite  unwarranted:  "  Was  eintr  docli  allcs  in  ciner  Stellc 
iinden  kann,  wenn  er  es  darin  timlen  will!  1'hilo  sagt,  dass  bei  ihren 
•emeinschaftlichen  Gastmahlern  einige  bei  Tische  dieiiten  (&IO.KO- 
'oui'Tts-),  hieraus  niacht  Kinchins  Diakonate;  mid  dass  bei  ihren 
UntersuJiungcn  liber  die  liibel  einer  (Trp.nOpoO  den  Vorsitz  babe; 
hieraus  macht  Eusebius  die  bischolliche  wiirde  (C/J-IUKOTTTJS  Trpot- 
)  " 

On    Vbilo's  works,  see   Schlirer,   C,V.v<7;.   ,/cs  jlid.    I'olkcs,  II. 
l>.  S?i  sim.      The  best   (though   it   leases   much   to  be    desired)  com- 
-'    •      f  Mangcy:    2   vols.,  folio, 


fragments  of  which  we  should  otherwise  be  ignorant. 
.!••>!•  YiAA>jYo(>i'.ii.  This  woik  is  still  extant,  and,  ac- 
cording to  Scluirer,  includes  all  the  works  contained  in  the  first  vol- 
ume of"  Mangey's  edition  (except  the  DC  Opificio  Mundi,  upon 
which  see  SeluinT,  p.  S.p  sqq.  and  note  1 1 ,  below) ,  comprising  16 
different  titles.  The  work  forms  the  second  great  group  of  writings 
upon  the  Pentateuch,  and  is  a  very  full  and  allegorical  commentary 
upon  C.enesis,  beginning  with  the  second  chapter  and  following  it 
verse  by  verse  through  the  fourth  chapter;  but  from  that  point  on 
certain  passages  are  selected  and  treated  at  length  under  special 
titles,  and  under  those  lilies,  in  Schiirer's  opinion,  were  published 
by  I'hilo  as  separate  works,  though  really  forming  a  part  of  one 
complete  whole.  From  this  much  confusion  has  resulted.  Rusebius 
embraces  all  of  the  works  as  far  as  the  end  of  chap.  4  (including  five 
titles  in  Mangey)  under  the  one  general  title,  but  from  that  point  on 
he  too  quotes  separate  works  under  special  titles,  but  at  the  end 
(§  5,  below)  he  unites  them  all  as  the  "eMant  works  on  Genesis. 
Many  portions  of  the  commentary  are  now  missing.  Compare 
Schiirer,  ibid.  pp.  838-846. 

•>  frT>iiJ.<LT<i  K,L'L  APO-CK:  Qitacstioiies  ct  solittiones.  According 
to  Schiirer  (ibid.  p.  836  sq.),  a  comparatively  brief  catechetical  inter- 
pretation of  the  Pentateuch  in  the  form  of  questions  and  answers, 
embracing  probably  six  books  on  Genesis  and  live  on  Exodus,  and 
forming  the  first  great  group  of  writings  upon  the  Pentateuch.  So 
far  as  Eusebius  seems  to  have  known,  they  covered  only  Genesis  and 
Exodus,  and  this  is  all  that  we  are  sure  of,  though  some  think  that 
they  included  also  the  remainder  of  the  Pentateuch.  About  half  of 
this  work  (four  books  on  Genesis  and  two  on  Exodus)  is  extant 
in  an  Armenian  version  (published  by  Aucher  in  2  vols.,  Venet  1822 
and  '26,  and  in  Latin  by  Ritter,  vols.  6  and  7  of  his  edition  of  I  hilo  i 
works);  and  numerous  Latin  and  Greek  fragments  still  exist  (see 
Schurer,  p.  837  sqq.)_.  „  .  .  „  ,  (so  Jcr 

J  20 


[II.  18. 

ness  :''  and  some  others  distinguished  by  different 
titles  corresponding  to  the  contents  of  each  ;  for 
instance.  Concerning  the  things  which  the  Sober 
Mind  desires  am/  execrates?  On  the  Confusion  of 
Tongues''  On  Flight  and  Discovery*  On  Assem- 
bly for  the  sake  of  Instruction?  On  the  question, 
'  ll'/io  is  heir  to  things  Jivine  /  '  or  On  tlic  divis- 
ion of  things  into  equal  am/  unequal™  and  still 
further  the  work  On  the  three  Virtues  which 

3  with  others  have  been  described  by  Moses?1 
In   addition  to  these    is  the  work  On  those. 

whose  Raines  have  been  changed  and  why  they  have 
been  changed?1  in  which  he  says  that  he  had 

4  written  also  two  books  On  Covenants.1''   And 

Pentateuch;  of  the  large  commentary,  i-o/xwi'  itpwi'  aAAT)yoptat,  men- 
tioned above  (note  2}.  Thi>  work  is  still  extant,  and  is  given  by 
M.ui.;ey,  1.  300-556,  as  two  works  with  distinct  titles:  wtpi  ytwpyias' 
and  <,'>i'7ovpyta«  jSYut  TO  iSeuTtpor  (Schiirer,  p.  843). 

."'  77. ,!i  Vt"is  Too-aiiTu:  DC  clrictatc  d:to  (so  Jerome,  ibid.'}. 
Upon  ('.en.  ix.  21.  Only  the  second  book  is  extant  (Mangey,  I. 
357-va),  but  from  its  beginning  it  is  plain  that  another  book 
originally  preceded  it  (Schiirer,  p.  843). 

6  TTtpt  tin1  r>/.ia«  o  roi'S  tv\tTai  xai   KaTapaTat.     Jerome,  dc  r'if. 
ill.  ii,  de  his  (fit  a-  scnsu  prccainur  ,'t  detestainur.    Upon  Gen.  ix. 
24.     Still  extant,  and  given  by  Mangey  (I.  392-405),  who,  however, 
prints  the  work  under  the  title   wept   TOU   tftrr/Ot    Not  :    De  Sflbric- 
tatc;  though  in  two  of  the  best  MSS.  (according  to  Mangey,  I.  392, 
note)  the  title  agrees  closely  with  that  given  by  Eusebius  (Schiirer, 
P-  843'. 

7  "-.pi  o-vyKi;o-toi9  Tojr  .5iaAtKTa)r.     Upon  Gen.  xi.  1-9.     Still  ex- 
tant, and  given  by  Mangey,  I.  404-435  (Schiirer,  p.  844). 

J  i,')iiyj)s  KU'I  ei'ptcrtfcj?.  The  same  title  is  found  in  Johannes 
Moiiachus  (Mangey,  I.  546,  note),  and  it  is  probably  correct,  as  the 
work  treats  of  the  flight  and  the  discovery  of  Hagar  (Gen.  xvi.  6-14). 
It  is  still  extant,  and  is  given  by  Mangey  (I.  546-577)  tinder  the  title 
wtpi  .,'ji'yn.;i.Ji-,  '  On  Fugitives.'  The  text  of  Eusebius  in  this  place 
has  been  very  much  corrupted.  The  reading  which  I  give  is  sup- 
ported by  good  MS.  authority,  and  is  adopted  by  Valesius,  Stroth_, 
and  I.aernmer.  But  Xicephorus  reads  wtpi.  </>"ytj«  *at  aipto-tws  K.ii  o 
wt-pt  <.')!'<reojs  KU!  tupto-tai?,  whicli  is  al.-o  supported  by  MS.  author- 
ity, and  is  adopted  by  Burton,  Schwegler,  and  Heinichen.  But  upon 
comparing  the  title  of  the  work,  as  given  by  Johannes  Monachus 
and  as  found  in  the  various  MSS.  of  Philo,  with  the  contents  of  the 
work  itself,  there  can  be  little  doubt  of  the  correctness  of  the  shorter 
reading.  Of  the  second  work,  which  the  longer  reading  introduces 
into  the  text  of  Eu.-ebius,  we  have  no  knowledge,  and  Philo  can 
hardly  have  written  it.  Schiirer,  who  adopts  the  shorter  reading, 
expresses  himself  very  strongly  (p.  845,  note  34). 

11   wi-f/c    TJ)S   wpus  T<i  Trai<5tr,ua7a  a\-v»t,(jv ,  "  On   Assembly  for  the 

sake   of  ui>tr.-.  :'.i  in."     Upon  Gen.  xvi.  1-6,  which  is  interpreted  to 

;    me       ist  make  himself  acquainted  with  the  lower  branches 

Hagar)  before   he  can   go  on  to  the  higher  (Sarah), 

:u  them  obtain  the  fruit,  vi/.  :  virtue  (Isaac).   Still  extant,  and 

by  Mangey,  I.  5197545  (Schiirer,  844  sqq.). 

11    TTtpt   Tf  TOU,   Tl?  6   TOJt'   tftlUJC   t'(7Tt  K A7)pOl'OpO^,   r}   Wtpi   T7JS   CIS  Ta 

io-a  Kat  tVai'Tia  Top>js.  From  this  double  title  Jerome  (Je  vir.  ill. 
n)  wrongly  makes  two  works.  The  writing  is  still  extant,  and  is 
given  by  Mangey  (I.  473-518)  under  the  title  wepi  TOU  Tts  6  ju>v 
Ctioii'  wpayp.aTwi'  KAijpivdM"?  (Schiirer,  844). 

This  work  is  still  extant,  and  is  given  by  Mangey  under  the  title  wept  aripttas,  II.  375-383;  wept  i.VAai'tfpwwta?,  II.  383-405 ; 
wtpi  fitTarcuas,  II.  405-407.  Jerome  gives  the  simple  title  DC  tri- 
bus  •virtutibus  lil>er  n, 

According  to  Schiirer  (p.  852  s([q.)  it  forms  an  appendix  to  the 
third  great  group  of  works  upon  the  Pentateuch,  containing  those 
laws  which  do  not  belong  to  any  one  of  the  ten  commandments  in 
parti  nlar,  but  fall  under  the  head  of  general  cardinal  virtues.  The 
third  group,  as  Schiirer  describes  it  (p.  846),  aims  to  give  for  non- 
Jews  a  complete  view  of  the  Mosaic  legislation,  and  embraces,  first, 
the  work  upon  the  Creation  (whLh  in  the  MSS.  and  editions  of 
Philo  is  wrongly  placed  at  the  beginning  in  connection  with  the  great 
Allegorical  Commentary,  and  is  thus  included  in  that  by  Eusebius 
in  his  list  of  Philo's  works,  so  that  be  does  not  make  special  mention 
of  it);  second,  the  lives  of  great  and  g  >od  men,  the  living  unwrit- 
ten la-w ;  and  third,  the  Mosaic  legislation  proper  (i.  The  ten 
commandments;  2.  The  special  laws  connected  with  each  of  these); 
and  finally  an  appendix  treating  of  certain  cardinal  virtues,  and  of 
reward  and  punishments.  Trm  group  i-.  more  historic  and  less  alle- 

extant,  and  is  given  by  Mangey,  I.  578-619.     See  Schiirer,  p.  485. 
^•''   tl'    oj    »JjT/<rt  crut'TCTa^f fat   feat  wept    6ta$TiKu»l'   wptuTor    Kn.t    fiti1- 

Xearly  all  the  MSS.,  followed  by  some  of  the  editors,  read 

there  is  also  a  work  of  his  On  Emigration™ 
and  one  On  the  life  of  a  Wise  Man  made  perfect 
in  RigJiteoiisncss,  or  On  unwritten  Laws  ; I5  and 
still  further  the  work  On  Giants  or  On  the  Im- 
mutability of  God?''  and  a  first,  second,  third, 
fourth  and  fifth  book  On  the  proposition,  that 
Dreams  according  to  Moses  are  sent  by  God.11 
These  are  the  books  on  Genesis  that  have 
come  down  to  us.  But  on  Exodus  we  are  ac-  5 
quainted  with  the  first,  second,  third,  fourth 
and  fifth  books  of  Questions  and  Answers;1* 
also  with  that  On  t/ie  Tabernacle™  and  that  On 
the  ten  Commandments'1^  and  the  four  books 

..peur>)?  /cat  SeuTt'pa?  instead  of  -pwrov  Kai  otuTtpor,  thus  making 
Eusebius  mention  a  work  "  On  the  first  and  second  covenants,"  in- 
stead of  a  first  and  second  book  "On  the  covenants."  It  is  plain 
from  Philo's  own  reference  to  the  work  (on  p.  586  in  Mangey 's  ed.) 
that  he  wrote  two  books  "  On  covenants,"  and  not  a  work  "  On  the 
two  covenants."  I  have  therefore  felt  warranted  in  reading  with 
Heinichen  and  some  other  editors  wpcoTof  KOLL  ^turepor,  a  reading 
which  is  more  natural  in  view  of  the  absence  of  an  article  with 
5iu0>)KuH',  and  which  is  confirmed  by  Nicephorus  Callistus.  This 
reading  must  be  correct  unless  we  are  to  suppose  that  Eusebius  mis- 
read Philo.  Fabricius  suggests  that  Eusebius  probably  wrote  a  icat 
13',  which  the  copyists  wrongly  referred  to  the  "  covenants  "  instead 
of  to  the  number  of  the  books,  and  hence  gave  the  feminine  instead 
of  the  neuter  form. 

This  work  "  On  covenants,"  or  "  On  the  whole  discussion  con- 
cerning covenants"  (as  Philo  gives  it),  is  now  lost,  as  it  was  already 
in  the  time  of  Eusebius;  at  least  lie  knew  of  it  only  from  Philo's 
reference  to  it.  See  Schiirer,  p.  845. 

11  -tpt  aTrotKias-:  DC  Migration*.'  Alraliaini.  Upon  Gen.  xii. 
1-6.  The  work  is  still  extant,  and  is  given  by  Mangey,  I.  436-472. 
See  Schiirer,  p.  844. 

13  fiiov  <jo',')ou  roO  Kara<j\>i'i]v  TeAeiwOeVros,  r;  ropwr  dypa- 
.,,„>'.  (According  to  Schiirer,  &(.Kaioavi'-i]v  here  is  a  mistake  for 
Si&aa-Ka.\',  which  is  the  true  reading  in  the  original  title.)  This 
work,  which  is  still  extant,  is  given  by  Mangey,  II.  1-40,  under  the 
same  title  (St6acr/«zAtar,  however,  instead  of  6ucaio<TV>'7jr) ,  with  the 
addition,  o  tort  Trtpt  'A/iJpaap.:  De  .Ibraliatiio.  It  opens  the  second 
division  of  the  third  great  group  of  writings  on  the  Pentateuch  (see 
note  n,  above) :  the  biographical  division,  mentioning  Enos,  Enoch 
and  Xoah,  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob,  but  dealing  chiefly  with 
Abraham.  The  biographies  of  Isaac  and  Jacob  probably  followed, 
but  they  are  lost,  and  we  have  no  trace  of  them,  so  that  the  life  of 
Joseph  (see  below,  note  26)  in  the  MSS.  follows  directly  upon  that 
of  Abraham  (Schiirer,  p.  848  sqq.). 

]l'  77fcpt  yfyal'Ttuj',  r)  TTtpt  TOli  /J.TJ  Tpe7re(70a(.  TO  (?ttoi/.  Upon  Gen. 
vi.  1-4  and  4-12.  The  two  parts  of  this  work,  both  of  which  are 
still  extant,  form  really  but  one  book;  for  instance,  Johannes  Mona- 
chus (ineaitus)  quotes  from  the  latter  part  under  the  title  Trepi 
ytyai-Ttoi-  (according  to  Mangey,  I.  262,  note,  and  272,  note).  But 
the  two  are  divided  in  Mangey's  edition,  where  the  first  is  given 
under  the  title  wept  ytyai'Ttoi'  (I.  262-272),  the  second  under  the 
title  OTI  J-ptTTToi'  (I.  272-299).  See  Schiirer,  p.  843.  The  title  is 
found  in  the  form  given  at  the  beginning  of  this  note  in  all  the  MSS. 
of  Eusebius  except  two,  which  have  xai  instead  of  ij,  thus  making 
two  separate  works.  This  reading  is  adopted  by  Heinichen  and  by 
Gloss,  but  is  poorly  supported  by  MS.  authority,  and  since  the  two 
titles  cover  only  one  work,  as  already  mentioned,  the  rj  is  more 
natural  than  the  /cat. 

17  n-ept  TC  TOU  KaTa  Mwiicrea  0<;07re>7TTOi>s  etrai  TOUS  ocetpou? 
TrptuTor,  StvTtpoi',  K.T.A.  Two  books  are  extant,  the  first  upon  Gen. 
xxviii.  12  sqq.  and  xxxi.  n  sqq.  (given  by  Mangey,!.  620-658),  the 
second  upon  Gen.  xxxvii.  and  xl.-xli.  (given  by  Mangey,  I.  659- 
699).  Jerome  (Je  i'ir.  ill.  n)  follows  Eusebius  in  mentioning  five 
books,  and  there  is  no  occasion  to  doubt  the  report.  Schiirer  thinks 
that  the  two  extant  books  are  the  second  and  third  of  the  original 
five  (Schiirer,  845  sqq.). 

]s  <,"7)Tr|aaT<i  KILL  Aufftts;  see  above,  note  3.  Eusebtus  knew  only 
five  books  upon  Exodus,  and  there  is  no  reason  to  think  there  were 
any  more.  . 

1:1  Philo  wrote  a  work  entitled  wept  /3iot>  Mwo-tios:  /  ita  Masts, 
which  is  still  extant,  but  is  not  mentioned  in  the  catalogue  of  Euse- 
bius. It  contains  a  long  description  of  the  tabernacle,  and  conse- 
quently Schiirer  concludes  that  the  work  mentioned  here  by  Eusebius 
(wept  TTJS  o-KTJi'rjs)  represents  that  portion  of  the  larger  work.  If  this 
be  the  case,  it  is  possible  that  the  section  in  the  MSS.  used  by  Euse- 
bius was  detached  from  the  rest  of  the  work  and  constituted  an  inde- 
pendent book.  The  omission  of  the  title  of  the  larger  work  is  doubt- 
less due,  as  Schiirer  remarks,  to  the  imperfect  transmission  of  the 
text  of  Eusebius'  catalogue.  See  Schiirer,  p.  855. 

211  wept  TW I-  Se/ca  Aoyiwi':  De  Decalogo.  Still  extant,  and  given 
by  Mangey,  II.  180-209.  Jerome  has  the  condensed  title  de  tabcr- 
naculo  ct  decalogo  libri  quattnor,  and  this  introduces  the  third  divis- 
ion of  the  third  general  group  of  works  upon  the  Pentateuch  (see 
note  u,  above),  and,  according  to  Schiirer,  should  be  joined  directly 

II.  iS.J 


I  2  1 

On  the  laws  -which  refer  especially  to  the  princi- 
pal divisions  of  the  ten  Commandments'*  and  an- 
other On  animals  intended  for  sacrifice  and  On 
the  kinds  of  sacrifice?  and  another  On  the  re- 
wards fixed  in  the  law  for  the  good,  and  on  the 

punishments  and  curses  fixed  for  the  wicked'.  ' 
6  In  addition  to  all  these  there  are  extant 

also  some  single- volumed  works  of  his  ;  as 
for  instance,  the  work  On  Providence',*  and  the 
book  composed  by  him  On  t/ie  Jews?  and  Tlie. 
Statesman;'*'  and  still  further,  Alexander,  or  On 
the  possession  of  reason  by  the  irrational  ani- 
mals? Besides  these  there  is  a  work  On  the 

to  the  ;3.os-  -oAiTtKos,  or  Liff  of  Joseph,  and  not  separated  from  it 
by  the  insertion  of  the  Life  of  Moses  (as  is  done  by  Mangey) ,  which 
does  not  belong  to  this  group  (Schurer,  p.  849  sqq.). 

K* •\>H\oj.a™v  'fitica  Aoywr,  a'B'y'S':  De  specialibus  Icgibus.  A  part 
of 'the  third  division  of  the  third  general  group  of  works  (see  note 
ii  above).  It  is  still  extant  in  four  books,  each  with  a  special  title, 
and  each  containing  many  subdivisions.  They  are  given  by  Mangey : 
first  book,  II.  210-269,  in  seven  parts:  de  circumcisione,  de  >non- 
ai-chiti  Liber  l.,de  inonarchia  Liber  II.,de  prctmiis  sacerdo- 
t ii  m  de  victimis,  de  sacrificantibus,  or  de  victimis  ofjerentibus 
df  mcrcede  meretricis  non  accipienda  in  sacrannm ;  second 
book,  270-298,  incomplete  in  Mangey,  but  entire  in  Tischendorfs 
I'liilonea,  p.  1-83;  third  book,  299-334;  fourth  book,  3357374: 
made  up  like  the  first  of  a  number  of  tracts  on  special  subject: 
Philo,  in  this  work,  attempts  to  bring  all  the  Mosaic  laws  into  a  sys- 
tem under  the  ten  rubrics  of  the  decalogue:  for  instance,  under  the 
first  two  commandments,  the  laws  in  regard  to  priests  and  sacrifices; 
under  the  fourth,  the  laws  in  regard  to  the  Sabbath,  &C.  See 
Schiirer,  p.  850  sqq. 

--  Trtpt  Tuir  tU  rd;  itpoupytas  fiowi',  K-ai  Ttya  Ta  Ttoi-  Ovtriiav 
dStj.  This  is  really  only  a  portion  of  the  first  book  of  the  work  just 
mentioned,  given  in  Mangey  under  the  title  de  victimis  ( 
250) .  It  is  possible  that  these  various  sections  of  books  —  or  at  least 
this  one  — circulated  separately,  and  that  thus  Eusebius  took  it  for 
an  independent  work.  See  Schurer,  p.  851. 

-•>  Trtpt  TIOI-  -poKtip.ti'un'  tv  TUJ  r'ifiu  Tot;  (xep  uyaHoi?  aoAior, 
TOIS  St  n-oi'ijpo^  tTriTijuiW  KM  apiir,  still  extant  and  given  by  Man- 
irey  (incorrectly  as  two  separate  works)  under  the  titles  Trtpt  it'/Wr 
KCU  t7riTi,au,.K  ,'de  prtfiniis  et  panis  (II.  408-428),  and  rrt-pl  apwr, 
de  exfcrationibus  (II.  429-437).  The  writing  forms  a  sort  of  epi- 
logue to  the  work  upon  the  Mosaic  legislation.  Schurer,  p.  854. 

-'  T-;>  Trtpi  n-poroiav,  De  proridcntia.  This  work  is  extant  only 
in  an  Armenian  version,  and  is  published  with  a  Latin  translation  by 
Aucher,  Vol.  I.  p.  1-121  (see  above,  note  3),  and  in  Latin  by  Ritter 
(Vol  VI II.).  Two  Greek  fragments,  one  of  considerable  extent,  are 
preserved  by  Eusebius  in  his  Prceparatio  AV<r«A'.  VII.  21,  and 
VI II.  14.  In  the  Armenian  the  work  consists  of  two  books,  but  the 
first  is  of  doubtful  genuineness,  and  Eusebius  seems  to  have  known 
only  one,  for  both  quotations  in  the  /';-«-/.  Erang.  are  from  the 
present  second  book,  and  the  work  is  cited  in  the  singular,  as  also 
in  the  present  passage,  where  TO  is  to  be  read  instead  of  TO,  though 
some  MSS.  have  the  latter.  The  work  (which  is  not  found  in 
Mangey 's  ed.)  is  one  of  Philo's  separate  works  which  does  not 
fall  under  any  of  the  three  groups  upon  the  Pentateuch. 

-•"'  Trtpt  'louoiuuii',  which  is  doubtless  to  be  identified  with  the  >/ 
i>Trtp  'louSaitui'  dn-oAoyta,  which  is  no  longer  extant,  but  which  Euse- 
bius mentions,  and  from  which  he  quotes  in  his  J>ru'f>.  f-.^'tin^. 
VIII.  2.  The  fragment  given  by  Eusebius  is  printed  by  Mangey  in 
Vol.  II.  p.  632-634,  and  in  Dahne's  opinion  (77i,;il.  Stiidicn 
Kritikcn,  1883,  p.  990)  the  two  preceding  fragments  given  by  Man- 
gey (p.  626  sqq.)  also  belong  to  this  Apologv.  The  work  entitled 
dc  nobilitatc  (Mangey,  11.  437-440  possibly  formed  a  part  of  the 
Apologv.  This  is  Dahne's  opinion  (see  ibid.  p.  990,  1037),  with 
whom  Schurer  agrees.  The  genuineness  of  the  Apology  is  generally 
admitted,  though  it  has  been  disputed  on  insufficient  grounds  by 

too,  like  the  preceding,  was  one  of  the  separate  works  of  Philo.     S .. 
Schiirer,  p.  861  sq. 

'-''•  6  TroAiTtKo?.     Still  extant,  and  given  by  Mangey  (II.  41-79) 

proposition  that  erery  wicked  man  is  a  slave,  to 
which  is  subjoined  the  work  On  the  propo- 
sition that  every  good  man  is  free'.-'     Alter       7 
these  was  composed   by  him  the  work    On 
the  contemplative  life,  or    On  suppliants':'   from 
which  we  have  drawn  the  facts  concerning  the 
life  of  the  apostolic  men  ;  and  still  further,  the 
Interpretation  of  the  Ilehrew  names  in   the  law 
and  in  the  prophets  are  said  to  be  the  result 
of  his  industry:1"     And  he  is  said  to  have       8 
read  in  the  presence  of  the  whole  Roman 
Senate  during  the  reign  of  Claudius :;1  the  work 
which  he  had  written,  when  he  came  to   Rome 
under  Cains,  concerning   Cains'   hatred    oi    the 
gods,  and   to  which,   with  ironical   reference   to 
its  character,  he  had  given  the  title  On  tlie   Vir- 
tues:1    And    his    discourses  were   so    much    ad- 
mired as  to  be  deemed  worthy  of  a  place  in  the 

At  this  time,  while  Paul  was  completing  9 
his  journey  "  from  Jerusalem  and  round 
about  unto  Illyricum,"33  Claudius  drove  the  Jews 
out  of  Rome  ;  and  Aquila  and  I'riscilla.  leaving 
Rome  with  the  other  Jews,  came  to  Asia,  and 
there  abode  with  the  apostle  Paul,  who  was 
confirming  the  churches  of  that  region  whose 

Photius,  Bib.  Cod.   105,  gives  —  ..-,--  ,- 

forms  a  part  of  the  second  division  of  the  third  great  group  upon  the 
Pentateuch  (see  above,  note  n),  and  follows  directly  the  Life  of 
Abraham,  the  Lives  of  Isaac  and  Jacob  probably  having  fallen  _out 
(compare  note  15,  above).  The  work  is  intended  to  show  how 'the 
wise  man  should  conduct  himself  in  affairs  of  state  or  political  life. 
See  Schiirer,  p.  849. 

'"  6  'AAtJai'Spo?  TI  TT-epi  TOV  \6yov  t\fiv  Ta  uAoyo  c,oja,  De 
Alexandra  et  tjnod  propriain  rationem  inittti  aniinalia  tiabeant, 
as  the  title  is  given  by  Jerome  (de  vir.  ill.  c.  n).  The  work  is  ex- 
tant only  in  Armenian,  and  is  given  by  Aucher,  I.  p.  123-172,  and 

in  Latin  by  Ritter,  Vol.  VII.  Two  short  Greek  fragments  are  also 
found  in  the  l-'lorile^ium  of  Leontius  and  Johannes,  according  to 
Schurer.  This  book  "is  also  one  of  the  separate  works  of  Philo,  and 
belongs  to  his  later  writings.  See  Schurer,  p.  S6o  sqq. 

-*  "o  Trtpt  TOU  SoGAor  tti-at  Trcti-Ttt  c/inrAoi',  tu  t'fijs-  term'  <>  -tpt  joy 
-ai'Ttt  a-TTOuSatW  tAtu#tpoi<  ttrat.  These  two  works  formed  origi- 
nally the  two  halves  of  a  single  work,  in  which  the  subject  was 
treated  from  its  two  sides,  —  the  slavery  of  the  wicked  man  and  the 
freedom  of  the  good  man.  The  first  half  is  lost;  but  the  second  half 
is  extant,  and  is  given  by  Mangey  (II.  445-470).  A  long  fragment 
of  the  extant  second  half  is  given  also  by  Eusebius,  in  his  /'>-<//. 
K-'ii>i?.  VIII.  12.  The  genuineness  of  the  work  has  been  disputed 
by  some,  but  is  defended  with  success  by  Lucius,  Der  Esscnismus, 
p.  13-23,  Strasburg,  iSSi  (Schurer,  p.  85). 

'^'  See  the  preceding  chapter;  and  on  the  work,  see  note  2  on  that 
chapter.  .... 

ntui.  The  way  in  which  Eusebius  speaks  of  this  work  (TOI>  arroi> 
o-n-oi'tSal  eirat  Atv"i'Tru)  shows  that  it  lay  before  him  as  an  anony- 
mous work,  which,  however,  was  "  said  to  be  the  result  of  Philo's 
industry."  Jerome,  too,  in  speaking  of  the  same  work  (at  the 
beginning  of  his  own  work,  De  nominibits  Hi-braids') ,  says  ^tliat, 
according  to  the  testimony  of  Origen.  it  was  the  work  of  Philo. 
Eor  Jerome,  too,  therefore,  it  was  an  anrn\mou>  work.  This _ testi- 
mony of  Origen  cannot,  according  to  Schurer,  be  found  in  Ins  ex- 
tant works,  but  in  his  Comment,  in  Jcann.  II.  27  (ed.  Lommatzseh, 
I  50)  he  speaks  of  a  work  upon  the  same  subject,  the  author  of 
which  he  does  not  know.  The  book  therefore  in  view  of  the  exist- 
ing state  of  the  tradition  iu  regard  to  it,  is  usually  thought  to  be  the 
work  of  some  other  writer  than  Philo.  In  its  original  form  it  is  no 
longer  extant  (and  in  the  absence  of  this  original  it  is  impossible  to 
decide  the  question  of  authorship),  though  there  exist  a  number  of 
works  upon  the  same  subject  which  are  probably  based  upon  this 
lost  original.  Jerome,  e.g.,  informs  us  that  his  Liber  nc  .\oiiiiiii- 
b:is  Hcbrazcis' (Migne,  III.  771)  is  a  revision  of  it.  See  Schurer, 

P'  ^5"  This  report  is  very  improbable,  for    a   work  full  of  hatred  to 
the  Romans  and  of  derogatory   references   to  the  emperor  L  aligul 
could  not  have  been  read  before  the  Roman   Senate,  especially  when 
the    author  was  a  Jew"    (Closs).      It  is   in   fact  quite  unlikely  tti 
Philo  was  in  Rome  during  the  reign  of  Claudius  (see  above,  chap.  17, 
note   i).     The  report  given  here  by  Eusebius  owes  its  origin  perhaps 
to  the  imagination  of  some   man  who    supposed   that    Philo  was 
Rome  during  the  reign  of  Claudius  (on  the  ground  of  the  ot 
dition  already  referred  to),  and  whose  fancy  led  him  to  picture  I  nil 
as  obtaining  at  that  time  his  revenge  upon  the  emperor  LaliRul: 
this  dramatic  way.     It  was  not  difficult  to  imagine  that  this  li 
sarcastic  and  vivid  work  might  have  bee-i   intended  for  publu 
ing,  and  it  was  an  attractive  suggestion  that  the  Senate   might 
constituted  the  audience. 

3-  See  above,  chap.  5,  note  i. 

33  Romans  xv.  19. 

I  22 


[II.  18. 

nd    newly    laid       The    sacred1  Samaria    and    Galilee,   and    of  the    land    called 
\cts    informs    us    also    of    these    1'erea/'     And  after  he  had  reigned  thirteen  years 

and    eight   months1''  he   died,  and  left   Nero    as 
his  successor  in  the  empire. 


1  \Viiii.i:    Claudius    was     still     emperor,    it 
happened  that  so  great  a  tumult  and  dis- 
turbance took  place  in  Jerusalem  at  the  feast  of 
the    Passover,    that     thirty    thousand     of    those 
lews  alone  who  were   forcibly  crowded  together 
at    the    gate     of    the    temple    perished,1     being 
trampled  under  foot  by  one  another.     Thus  the 
festival    became    a    season  of    mourning    for  all 
the    nation,    and   there    was    weeping    in   every 
house.     These    things    are   related  literally"    by 


2  I!ut  Claudius  appointed  Agrippa;"  son  of 
Agripp;i,    king    of  the     Jews,    having     sent 

Felix ''as    procurator    of  the  whole    country  of 

which   mi'iht  arise   union;;   the   great   mass  of  people 

soldiers     with  the   view    of   insulting   the    Jews,   conducted    himself 

indecently   in  their   presence,  whereupon  so  great  an  uproar; 

crushed  each  other  to  death  in  their  eagerness  to  escape.  Josephus, 
in  his  Jt-wi'i'i  U'tir,  gives  the  number  of  the  slam  as  ten  thousand, 
and  in  the  Antiquities  us  twenty  thousand.  The  latter  work  was  writ- 
ten 1  ist  but  knowing  losephus'  fondness  for  exaggerating  numbers, 
we  shall  perhaps  not  accept  the  correction  as  any  nearer  the  truth. 
Tint  Kusebius  gives  thirty  thousand  need  not  arouse  suspicion  as  to 
his  honesty  —he  could  have  had  no  object  for  changing  "twenty 
to  "  thirty,"  when  the  former  was  certainly  great  enough,  — we  need 
-.imply  remember  how  easily  numbers  become  altered  in  transcrip- 
tion Valesius  says  that  this  disturbance  took  place  under  Quadrat"" 

g3C Herod  Agr'ippa  II.,  son  of  Herod   Agrippa  I.     At  the  time  of 
us  father's  death  (11  ,\.n.)  he   was  but   seventeen  years  of  age    and 

Ins  youth   deterred  Claudius   from    giving   him   the   kingdom   of   his 
father,  which  was  therefore  again  converted  into  a  Roman  province, 

of  his 

and' Fadus  was  sent  as  procurator.  In  4y  A.D.  Agrippa  was  given 
the  kingdom  of  Chalcis  which  bad  belonged  to  his  uncle  Herod  (a 
brother  of  Agrippa  I.),  and  in  55  A.D.  he  was  transferred  to  the 


'/'//<•  Events  -^liicli  took  Place  in  Jerusalem  dur- 
ing the  Reign  of  Nero. 

JosKi'lirs  again,  in  the  twentieth  book  of       1 
his    Antiquities,  relates    the   quarrel    which 
arose    among    the    priests    during    the   reign    of 
Nero,  while  Felix  was  procurator  of  Judea. 
His  words  are  as  follows  '  :   "There  arose  a        2 
quarrel    between    the    high    priests   on    the 
one    hand  and  the    priests    and    leaders   of  the 
people  of  Jerusalem  on  the   other.-     And  each 
of  them    collected  a  body  of   the   boldest   and 
most    restless    men,   and    put   himself    at    their 
head,  and  whenever  they  met  they  hurled  invec- 
tives and  stones  at  each  other.     And  there  was 
no  one  that  would  interpose  ;   but  these  things 
were   done  at  will  as  if  in  a  city  destitute 
of  a  ruler.     And  so  great  was  the  shame- 
lessness    and    audacity  of  the    high  priests 
that   they  dared  to  send   their    servants    to  the 
threshing-floors  to  seize   the    tithes   due  to  the 
priests; "and  thus  those  of  the  priests  that  were 
poor    were    seen  to  be  perishing  of   want.     In 
this    way  did    the  violence  of  the  factions 
prevail    over    all   justice."     And   the  same       4 
author  again    relates    that  about   the  same 
time    there    sprang   up    in    Jerusalem  a  certain 
kind  of  robbers;'  "  who  by  day,"  as  he  says.  "  and 
in  the  middle  of  the  city  slew  those  who 
met  them."      For,  especially  at  the   feasts,       5 
they  mingled  with  the  multitude,  and  with 
short  swords,  which  they  concealed  under  their 
garments,  they  stabbed  the  most  distinguished 
men.     And  when  they  fell,  the  murderers  them- 
selves were    among  those  who    expressed   their 
indignation.     And  thus  on  account  of  the  con- 

letrarchies  of  Philip  and   Lysanias  with  the  title  of  King.     He  was 

never  king  of  the  Jews  in  the  same  sense  in  which  his  lather  was  as 
Judea  remained  a  Roman  province  throughout  his  reign,  while  his 
dominion  comprised  only  the  northeastern  part  of  Palestine.  He 

etii  iyed  however,  the  ri  dit  of  appointing  and  removing  the  high 
priests  and  under  Nero  his  domain  was  somewhat  increased  by  the 
addition  of  several  cities  of  Galilee,  and  Perea.  He  sided  with  the 

Romans  in  the  JewUh  war,  and  afterwards  went  to  Rome,  where  he 
died  in  100  ,\.i).,  the  last  prince  of  the  Herodian  line.  It  was  before 
this  Agrippa  that  Paul  made  his  defense  recorded  in  Acts  xxvi. 

1  Felix,  a  freedman  of  Claudius,  succeeded  Cumauus  as  procurator 
of  Judea  in  52  (or,  according  to  Wieseler,  53)  A.I).  The  territory  over 
which  he  ruled  included  Samaria  and  the  greater  part  of  Galilee  and 
Perea,  to  which  Judea  was  added  by  Nero,  according  to  Josephus, 
/;  y.  II.  13.  2.  Kwald,  in  the  attempt  to  reconcile  Tacitus,  Ann. 
XII.  54,  and  Josephus,  Ant.  XX.  5.  2-7.  i,  —  the  former  of  whom 
makes  Cumanns  and  Felix  contemporary  procurators,  each  over  a 
part  of  the  province,  while  the  latter  makes  Felix  the  successor  of 
Cumanus,  —concludes  that  Felix  was  sent  to  Judea  as  the  assistant 
of  Cumanus,  and  became  procurator  upon  the  banishment  of  the 
latter.  This  is  not  impossible,  though  we  have  no  testimony  to 

Citron.,  puts  the  accession  of  Felix  in  the  eleventh  year  of  Clau- 
dius (si  A.D.),  and  the  accession  of  Festus  in  the  fourteenth  year 
(54  A.D.),  but  both  of  these  dates  are  clearly  incorrect  (cf.  \\  icseler, 

P'  •"•  Eusebi'us  evidently  supposed  the  Roman  province  at  this  time 
to  have  been  limited  to  Samaria,  Galilee,  and  Perea;  but  in  this  he 
was  wrong,  for  it  included  also  Judea  (see  preceding  note),  Agrippa 
II.  having  under  him  only  the  totrarchies  mentioned  above  (note  3) 
and  a  few  cities  of  Galilee  and  Perea.  He  had,  however  the  au- 
thority over  the  temple  and  the  power  of  appointing  the  high  priests 
(see  Jos.  Ant.  XX.  8.  n  and  9.  1,4,6,7).,  which  had  been  given 
by  Claudius  to  his  uncle,  the  king  of  Chalcis  (Jos.  Ant.  XX.  1.3). 
«  Claudius  ruled  from  Jan.  24,  41  A.D.  to  Oct.  13,  54- 
i  Tos  Ant  XX  8.8.  Felix  showed  himself  throughout  very 
mean  and  cruel,  and  his  procuratorship  was  marked  with  continual 

dlS21Th1isC<"di'sturbance  arose  toward  the  end  of  Felix's  term,  under 
the  high  priest  Ishmael,  who  had  been  appointed  by  Agrippa  but  a 
short  Lie  before.  No  cause  is  given  by  Josephus  for  the  quarrel. 

.,  ,j  j  ]j  ,,  ,  These  open  robberies  and  murders,  which 
took  place  in  Jerusalem  at  this  period,  were  in  part  a  result  of  the 
conduct  of  Felix  himself  in  the  murder  of  Jonathan  (see  the  next 
note)  At  least  his  conduct  in  this  case  started  the  practice,  which 
was  kept  up  with  zeal  by  the  ruffians  who  were  so  numerous  at 
that  time. 



fide-nee  which  was  reposed  in  them  by  all, 
6  they  remained  undiscovered.  The  iirst 

that  was  slain  by  them  was  Jonathan  the 
high  priest;1  and  after  him  many  were  killed 
every  day,  until  the  fear  became  worse  than 
the  evil  itself,  each  one,  as  in  battle,  hourly 
expecting  death. 


The  Egyptian,  who  is  mentioned  also  in  the  Acts 
of  ///<'  Apostles. 

1  AI-TEK  other  matters  he  proceeds  a 
lows  :  :  t(  Hut   the  Jews  were  afflicted  with 

a  greater  plague  than  these  by  the  Egyptian 
false  prophet.-  For  there  appeared  in  the  land 
an  impostor  who  aroused  faith  in  himself  as  a 
prophet,  and  collected  about  thirty  thousand 
of  those  whom  he  had  deceived,  and  led  them 
from  the  desert  to  the  so-called  Mount  of  Olives 
whence  he  was  prepared  to  enter  Jerusalem  by 
force  and  to  overpower  the  Roman  garrison  and 
sei/e  the  government  of  the  people,  using  those 
who  "made  the  attack  with  him  as  body- 

2  guards.     Put   Felix  anticipated  his   attack, 
and  went  out  to  meet  him  with  the    Roman 

legionaries,    and    all    the    people    joined   in   the 

defense,  so  that  when  the  battle  was  fought  the 

Egyptian  iled  with  a  few  followers,  but  the  most 

of  them  were  destroyed  or  taken  captive. <: 

3  Josephus  relates  these  events  in  the  second 
book  of  his  History:'1     Put  it  is  worth  whil 

comparing  the  account  of  the  Egyptian  given 
icre  with  that  contained  in  the  Acts  of  the 
.postles.  In  the  time  of  Felix  it  was  said  to 
'aul  by  the  centurion  in  Jerusalem,  when  the 
niltitude  of  the  Jews  raised  a  disturbance 
gainst  the  apostle,  "  Art  not  thou  he  who  before 
lese  days  made  an  uproar,  and  led  out  into  the 
wilderness  four  thousand  men  that  were  mur- 
erers?"4  These  are  the  events  which  took 
•lace  in  the  time  of  Felix:' 


\inl  liaring  been    sent  bound  from    yude-.t  to 
Rome,   made  his   Defense,  and  was  acquitted 

FKSTUS1  was  sent  by  Nero  to  be   Felix's       1 
accessor.    Under  him  Paul,  having  made  his 
lefense,  was  sent  bound  to  Rome.-     Aristarchus 
vas  with  him,  whom  he  also  somewhere  in  his 
•pistles  quite  naturally  (-alls  his  fellow-prisoner.3 

eached    thirty    thousand,    and   that   when    attacked   the   rabble  dis- 
jersed,  but  that  Felix  slew  or  took  captive  the  six  hundred  robbers, 
-ainst    whom    his   attack    had   been    directed,    while    the    Egyptian 
scaped   with  a  small   number    (i.e.    small   in   comparison   with    the 
hirty  thousand),  who  may  well  have  been   the  four  thousand  men. 
ioned  by  the  author  of  the   Acts  in  the  passage  quoted  below  by 
•'.usebitis.      It  is  no  more  difficult  therefore  to  reconcile  the  Acts 
osephus  in  this  case  than  to  reconcile  Josephus  with  himscll,  an 
,e  have  no  reason  to  assume  a  mistake  upon  the  part  of  either  one, 
hough  as  already  remarked,  numbers  are  so  treacherous  in  trans- 
cription that  the  difference  may  really  have  been  originally  less  thi 
t  is.     Whenever  the  main  elements  of  two  accounts  are   in  substan- 
ial  agreement,  little  stress  can  be  laid  upon  a  difference  in   figures. 
Cf  Tholuck,  Ghiubwurdigkeit,v-  l69   (quoted  by  Hackett,  Loin. 

•'  Valesius   and   Ileinichen  assert  that    Kusel.ius   is    incorrect 

issieninc  this  uproar,  caused  by  the  Egyptian,  to  the  reign  of  N 

sephus  in  both  of  his  accounts  relates  the  uproar  among  events 
which  he  expressly  assigns  to  Nero's  reign,  and  there  is  no  reason 
to  suimose  that  the  order  of  events  given  by  him  is  incorrect.  \  ale- 

sius  and  Hemichen  proceed  on  the  erroneous  assumption  that  I'estus 
succeeded  Felix  in  the  second  year  of  Nero,  and  that  therefore,  since 

i  The  exact  year  of  the  accession  of     estus  is  not     nown,     u 
is  known  that  his  death  occurred  before  the  summer  of  62  A.D.;   I 

at  that  time  bis  successor,  Albinus,  was  already  procurator,  as  we 
can  see  from  Josephus,  /•'.  7.  VI.  5-  Is-  I'm  f»>">  »''K  evcnts  recorded 
by  Josephus  as  happening  during  his  term  of  office,  we  know  In 
must  have  been  procurator  at  least  a  year;  Ins  accession  ll'e.efore 
took  place  certainly  as  early  as  61  AD.,  and  probably  at  least  a  yea, 
earlier,  i  e.  in  60  A.I..,  the  date  fixed  by  Wieseler.  1  he  widest  pos- 
sible margin  for  his  accession  is  from  50-61.  Upon  this  whole  qucs 
lion  see  Wieseler,  p.  66  sqq.  Festus  died  while  in  office.  He  seems 
to  have  been  a  just  and  capable  governor,  —  in  this  quite 

before  the  fall  of  that  year. 
J  Col.  iv.  10. 



And   Luke,  who  wrote  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,1 

brought  his  history  to  a  close  at  this   point,  alter 

stating  that  l'aul  >pent  two  whole  years  at  Koine 

as    a    prisoner   at   large,   and   preached   the 

2  word  of  God  without  restraint.1     Thus  atler 
he  had  made  his  defence  it  is  said  that   the 

apostle  was  sent  again  upon  the  ministry  o! 
preaching,1''  ami  that  upon  coming  to  the  same 
city  a  second  time  he  suffered  martyrdom.'  In 
this  imprisonment  he  wrote  his  second  epistle 
to  Timothy,"  in  which  he  mentions  his  (irst 

3  defense  and  his  impending  death.      But  hear 
his    testimony    on    these    matters  :   ''  At   my 

."'   See  Acts  xxviii.    ,  .. 
.rd  the  of   Paul  from   a 
,,-in  .  a  second  Roman  imprisonment.     He 
.vitli   tlie   formula   A.iyos   ,  V'.  which    in.h- 
.   only  ail    oral    tradition    as    his    a..' 
.   the'  fact   by  exegetical    arguments   show 
,.      Many  maintain  that    Kusebius  follows 
•ords    simply   his    own    conclusion    formed 
1  Kpistles,  which  apparently  necessitate  a 
case,  he  would  hardly  have 
,    have  arisen    solely 
r.lly    have   originated   with 

,„  himself.  In  accordance  with  this  tradition.  Kusebius,  in 
his  CA, -on.,  give,  the  date  of  Paul's  death  as  67  A..,  Jerome  (,/,• 
•••!,-  ill  s)  and  other  later  writers  follow  Kusebius  (though  Jerome 
jives  the  date  as  68  instead  of  67),  and  the  tradition  soon  became 
firmly  established  (see  below,  chap.  25,  note  5).  Scholars  are  greatly 
divided  as  to  the  fact  of  a  sec.. in!  imprisonment.  Nearly  all  that 
the  genuineness  of  the  Pastoral  Kpistles  assume  a  second 
imprisonment,  I  I  e.  ;.  Wi,  ;eler,  Kb,  ml,  Reuss  and  others) 

.  nning  only  one  imprisonment:    but  this 

difficult.  On  ihe  other  hand,  most  opponents  of  the  epistUs 
e.  ;.  t'ae  Tubingen  critics  and  the  majority  of  the  new  critical  school) 
deny  the  second  imprisonment.  As  to  the  place  where  Paul  spent 
the  interval -supposing  him  to  have  been  released- there  is  again 
a  difference  of  opinion.  The  Pastoral  Kpistles,  it  assumed  to  be 
genuine,  seem  to  necessitate  another  visit  to  the  Orient.  P.nt  for 
such  a  visit  there  is  no  ancient  n  idition,  although  Paul  himself,  in 
the  Kpistle  to  the  Philippians,  expresses  his  expectation  of  making 
such  a  Oa  the  other  hand,  there  is  an  old  tradition  that  he 
visited  Spam  (which  must  of  course  have  been  during  this  interval, 
as  he  did  not  reach  it  before  the  first  imprisonment).  The  Murato- 
rian  Kragment  (from  the  end  of  the  second  century)  record.,  this  tra- 
dition in  a  way  lo  i  nply  that  it  was  universally  known.  Clement  of 
K,lim.  .«,c.  5.)  is  also  claimed  as  a  witness 

for  such  a  visit,  but  the  interpretation  of  Ins  words  is  doubtful,  so 
that  little  weight  can  be  laid  upon  his  statement.  In  later  times  the 
tradition  of  this  visit  to  Spain  dropped  out  of  the  Church.  Tl 
strongest  argument  against  the  vi-it  is  the  absence  of  any  trace 
it  in  Spain  itself.  If  any  church  there  could  ha\e  claimed  the  great 
apo-tle  to  the  Gentiles  as  its  founder,  it  seems  that  it  must  have 
asserted  its  claim  and  the  tradition  have  been  preserved  at  least  in 
ir,  h.  Thi.  appears  to  the  writer  a  fatal  argument  again* 
:l  j.mrney  tii  -pain.  <  hi  the  other  ham!,  the  absence  of  all  tradition  o 
another  f  .urney  to  the  (  )rient  does  not  militate  against  such  a  visit 
for  tr  idi'tion  at  any  place  might  easily  preserve  the  fact  of  a  visit  o 
the  ap'cvdc,  without  ]i reserving  an  accurate  account  of  the  number 
of  his  visits  if  more  tiian  one  were  made.  Of  the  defenders  of  tin 
,-pt  a  second  imprisonment,  some  assume 

simply  a  journey  to  the  Orient,  others  assume  also  the  journey  t. 
Spain,  between  the  spring  of  (  j  A. n.,  the  time  when  he  was  prob 
ibly  released,  if  released,  and  the  date  of  his  death  (at  the  earlies 
the  summer  of  64),  there  is  time  enough,  but  barely  so,  for  boll 
journeys.  If  the  .late  of  Paul's  death  be  put  later  with  Kusebius  am 
Jerome  (as  many  modern  critics  put  it),  the  time  is  of  course  quit< 
sufficient.  Compare  the  various  lave.,  of  Paul,  Commentaries,  etc. 
and  especially,  among  recent  work-,  Schaff's  Church  Hist.  I 
p.  231  sqq.;  Weiss'  /.'/  '  Hung  in  tins  -V.  T.  p.  -•  !  ;•'  !'  :'-' 
mann's  Einlcitung,  p.  295  sqq.;  and  WeizsUcker's  Apostolisch- 
Zeitalt,',-,  p.  433  sqq. 

"   See  below,  chap.  25,  note  6. 

"  Kusebius  looked  upon  the  Pastoral  Kpistles  as  undoubted!} 
genuine,  and  placed  them  among  the  llswol^u menu,  or  undispute. 
writings  (compare  1'dc.  III.  chaps.  3  ami  25).  Tlie  external  testi 
mony  for  them  is  very  sir.  .ng,  but  their  genuineness  has,  during  til 
present  century,  been  quite  widely  d  -ied  upon  internal  grounds 
The  advanced  critical  scholars  of  Germany  treat  their  non-PauIin 
authorship  as  completely  established,  and  many  otherwise  conserve 
tivc  scholars  follow  their  lead.  It  is  impossible  here  to  give  th 
various  arguments  for  or  against  their  genuineness;  we  may  refe 
the  reader  particularly  to  Holtzmann's  /'/,'  rastoralbriefe,  kntisct 
und  exegetisch  bchandclt  (1880),  and  to  his  l-.i,,leitiing  (1886) 
for  the  most  complete  presentation  of  the  case  against  the  genuine 
ness;  and  to  Weiss'  Einlcitung  in  das  N.  T.  (1886),  p.  286  sqq. 

first  answer,"  he  says,  "  no  man  stood  with  me, 
but  all  men  forsook  me  :  1  pray  God  that  it  may 
not    be    laid    to  their  charge.      Notwithstanding 
the  Lord  stood  with  me,  and  strengthened  me  ; 
that  by  me  the  preaching  might  be  fully  known, 
and  that  all  the  Gentiles  might  hear:   and  I  was 
delivered    out   of  the    mouth    of  the  lion."11 
lie    plainly    indicates    in    these   words   that        4 
on  the   former  occasion,   in  order  that  the 
preaching    might    be    fulfilled    by    him,    he    was 
rescued    from    the   mouth   of  tin-  lion,  referring, 
n   this   expression,   to   Nero,   as   is   probable   on 
ccount    of   the    hitter's    cruelty.      He    did    not 
hereloie   afterward   add    the    similar    statement, 
•He    will    rescue    me    from    the   mouth    of   the 
ion"  ;   for  he  saw  in  the  spirit  that  his  end 
vould  not  be  long  delayed.     Wherefore  he        5 
ulds  to  the  word's,  "And   he   delivered   me 
rom    the    mouth    of   the    lion,"  this   sentence  : 
'The    Lord    shall    deliver    me    from    every    evil 
vork,  and   will   preserve  me    unto   his  heavenly 
.ingdom/'  '"  indicating  his  speedy  martyrdom; 
vhich  he  also  foretells  still   more  clearly  in  the 
lame    epistle,  when   he  writes,  "  For   I   am  now 
•eady   to    be    offered,   and   the    time   of  my 
leparture    is    at    hand.""      In    his    second        6 
epistle   to  Timothy,  moreover,  he   indicates 
that  Luke  was  with  him  when  he  wrote,1-  but  at 
lis    first    defense  not  even  he.1:!     Whence   it  is 
probable  that  Luke  wrote  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
at   that  time,  continuing   his  history  down 
to  the  period  when  he  was  with  1'aul."     But        7 
these  things  have  been  adduced  by  us  to 
show  that  Paul's  martyrdom  did  not  take  place 
it  the  time  of  that  Roman  sojourn  which    Luke 

II.  2 



8       records.     It  is  probable  indeed  that  as  Nero 

\v;is  more'  disposed  to  mildness  in  the  be- 
ginning, Paul's  defense  of  his  doctrine  was  more 
easily  received  ;  but  that  when  he  had  advanced 
to  the  commission  of  lawless  deeds  ot  daring, 
he  made  the  apostles  as  well  as  others  the  subjects 
of  his  attacks.1" 


Thf  Martyrdom  of  fames,  who  was  called  the 
Brother  of  the  Lord. 

1  BUT    after   Paul,  in   consequence    of   his 
appeal  to  Crcsar,  had  been  sent  to  Rome 

by  Kestus,  the  Jews,  being  frustrated  in  their 
hope  of  entrapping  him  by  the  snares  which 
they  had  laid  for  "him,  turned  against  James, 
the  brother  of  the  Lord,1  to  whom  the  episcopal 
seat  at  Jerusalem  had  been  entrusted  by  the 
apostles.-  The  following  daring  measures 

2  were  undertaken  by  them  against  him.  Lead- 
ing him  into  their  midst  they  demanded  of 

him  that  he  should  renounce  faith  in  Christ  in 
the  presence  of  all  the  people.  But,  contrary 
to  the  opinion  of  all,  with  a  clear  voice,  and  with 
greater  boldness  than  they  had  anticipated,  he 
spoke  out  before  the  whole  multitude  and  con- 
fessed that  our  Saviour  and  Lord  Jesus  is  the 
Son  of  God.  But  they  were  unable  to  bear 
longer  the  testimony  of  the  man  who,  on  ac- 
count of  the  excellence  of  ascetic:  virtue"  and 
of  piety  which  he  exhibited  in  his  life,  was 
esteemed  by  all  as  the  most  just  of  men,  and 
consequently  they  slew  him.  Opportunity  for 
this  deed  of  violence  was  furnished  by  the  pre- 
vailing anarchy,  which  was  caused  by  the  fact 
that  Festus  had  died  just  at  this  time  in  Judea, 
and  that  the  province  was  thus  without  a  gov- 

3  ernor  and  head.4     The  manner  of  James' 
death    has   been    already  indicated  by  the 

above-quoted  words  of  Clement,  who  records 
that  he  was  thrown  from  the  pinnacle  of  the 
temple,  and  was  beaten  to  death  with  a  club." 
But  Hegesippus,"  who  lived  immediately  after 
the  apostles,  gives  the  most  accurate  account  in 
the  fifth  book  of  his  Memoirs.7  He  writes 

4  as  follows  :  "  James,  the  brother  of  the  Lord, 

succeeded  to  the  government  of  the  Church  in 
conjunction  with   the   apostles. s        lie   has  been 
called  the  Just1'  by  all  from  the  time  of  our  Sav- 
iour to  the  present  day  ;    for  there  were  many 
that  bore  the  name  of  James.      I  le  was  holy        5 
from  his  mother's  womb  ;     and    he    drank 
no  wine  nor  strong  drink,  nor  did  he  eat  flesh. 
No  razor  came  upon  his  head  ;  he  did  not  anoint 
himself  with   oil,   and  he   did   not   use   the 
bath,      lie    alone   was    permitted    to   enter        6 
into  the  holy  place  ;  for  he  wore  not  woolen 
but  linen  garments.     And  he  was  in  the  habit  of 
entering  alone  into  the  temple,  and  was  frequently 
found  upon  his  knees  begging  forgiveness  for  the 
people,  so  that  his  knees  became  hard  like  those 
of  a  camel,  in  consequence  of  his  constantly  bend- 
ing them  in  his  worship  of  God,  and  ask- 

ig  forgiveness  for  the  people.1"      Ik-cause       7 

.f  his  exceeding  great  justice  he  was  called 
the  Just,  and  Oblias,11  which  signifies  in  Greek, 

Bulwark  of  the  people'  and  'Justice,'1- in  ac- 
cordance   with    what  the  prophets  declare 

concerning  him.1::     Now  some  of  the  seven        8 
sects,  which  existed  among  the  people  and 
which  have  been  mentioned  by  me  in  the  Me- 

">  Whether  Eusebius'  conclusion  be  correct  or  not,  it  is  a  fact 
that  Nero  became  much  more  cruel  and  tyrannical  in  the  latter  part 
of  his  reign.  The  famous"  first  five  years,"  however  exaggerated 
the  reports  about  them,  must  at  least  have  been  of  a  very  different 
character  from  the  remainder  of  his  reign.  Hut  those  five  years  of 
clemency  and  justice  were  past  before  Paul  reached  Rome. 

1  See  above,  Bk.  I.  chap.  12,  note  14. 

2  See  above,  chap,  i,  note  n. 

3  c(HAo<roc/H'a<r.     See  Hk.  VI.  chap.  3,  note  9. 

*  See  the  preceding  chapter,  note  i,  am',  below,  note  40. 

c  See  chap,  i,  above. 

«  On  Hegesippus,  see  Hk.  IV.  chap.  22. 

'  As  the  Memoirs  of  Hegesippus  consisted  of  but  five  be 
account  of  James  occurred  in  the  last  book,  and  this  shows  how  ei 
tirely  lacking  the  work  was  in  all  chronological  arrangement  (cf 
Book  IV.  chap.  22).     This  fragment  is  given  by  Routh,  Rel.  Sa 
I.  p.  208  sqq.,  with  a  valuable  discussion  on  p.  228  sqq. 

moirs,11  asked  him,  '  What  is  the  gate  of  Jesus  ? ' 1; 

apostles  ''  ;    as  Riifiniis  rightly 


translates,  cum  apastolis.    Jerome,  on  the  contrary,  reads  post  afo 
"  - 

stolos,  "  after  the  apostles,"  as  if  the  Greek 

,  , 

Aovs.     This  statement  of  Hegesippus  is  correct.     James  was  a  leader 

same  name   is  giren    to 
Areopagite,  and  others. 

Kuscbius  docs  just  above,  and  as  Clement  (quoted  by  Eusebius, 
chap,  i,  §  3)  does,  that  he  was  appointed  Bishop  of  Jerusalem  by  the 
apostles.  See  chap,  i,  note  n.  '•'  See  chap,  i,  note  6. 

10  "The  dramatic  account  of  James  by  Hegesippus  is  an  over- 
drawn  picture   from   the  middle  of  the  second  century,  colored  by 
Judaizing  traits  which  may  have  been  derived  from  the  Asn-iits  of 
James,   and    other   Apocryphal  sources.     He   turns   James   into  a 
Jewish   priest  and   Xa/arite  saint  (cf.  his  advice   to   Paul,  Acts  xxi. 
"T.    -4)    who  drank  no  wine,  ate  no  flesh,  never  shaved  nor  took  a 
bath,  and  wore  only  linen.      But  the  Biblical  James  is  Pharisaic  and 
legalistic,  rather  than  Esscnic  and  ascetic  "  (Schaft,  Ch.  Hist.  I.  p. 
•>(•&).     For    Peter's   asceticism,   see   the    Clementine    Recognitions, 
VI 1 .  6 ;   and  for  Matthew's,  see  Clement  of  Alexandria's  Ptedasflgits, 

11  'f?/3Aias:  probably  a  corruption  of  the  Heb.  C1J  T'ES,   which 

signifies  "bulwark  of  the  people."  The 
James  by  Epiphanius,  by  Dionysius  the 
See  Suicer,  Thesaurus  Ecclfsiasticns,  s.\  . 

i-  IT.  pio\»)  TOU  AuoO  *«l  Sixaiocri  r.). 

i-  To  what  Hegesippus  refers  1  do  not  know,  as  there  is  no 
passage  in  the  prophets  which  can  be  interpreted  in  this  way.  He 
may  have  been  thinking  of  the  passage  from  Isaiah  quoted  in  §  15, 
below,  but  the  reference  is  certainly  very  much  strained. 

14  See  Bk.  IV.  chap.  22. 

i''  For  a  discussion  of  this  very  difficult  question,  whose  inter- 
pretation has  pu/zled  all  commentators,  see  Routh  AY/.  .Su(-.  1. 
p.  414  sq.,  and  Heinichen's  Mel.  IV.,  in  his  edition  of  Eusebius,  Vol. 
111.  p.  654  sqq.  The  explanation  given  by  Grabe  (in  his  SJ-ic.  I'P. 
p  251)  seems  to  me  the  best.  According  to  him,  the  Jews  wish  to 
ascertain  James'  opinion  in  regard  to  t  hrist,  whether  he  considers 
him  a  true  guide  or  an  impostor,  and  therefore  they  ask,  \\  hat  (ot 
what  sort)  is  the  gate  (or  the  way)  of  Christ?  Is  it  a  gate  which 
opens  into  life  (or  a  way  which  leads  to  life)  ;  or  is  it  a  gate  which 
opens  upon  death  (or  a  way  which  leads  to  death)  '.  Cf.  Matt.  vii. 
il,  14,  where  the  two  ways  and  the  two  gates  are  compared.  >f  1H 
Jews  had  undoubtedly  often  heard  Christ  called  "the  "Way,  and 
thus  they  might  naturally  use  the  expression  in  asking  James  opin- 
ion about  Jesus,  "  Is  he  the  true  or  the  false  way  ?  "  or,  "  Is  this  way 
true  or  false?  "  The  answer  of  James  which  follows  is  then  perfectly 
consistent:  "He  is  the  Saviour."  in  which  words  he  expresses  as 
decidedly  as  he  can  his  belief  that  the  way  or  the  gate  of  Christ  1 
to  salvation.  And  so  below,  in  §  12.  where  he  gives  a  second  answer 
to  the  question,  expressing  his  belief  in  Christ  still  more  emphati- 
cally. This  is  somewhat  similar  to  the  explanation  of  h 
(iHd  p.  6=;q  sq.),  who  construes  the  genitive  'li)<rov  as  in  virtue 
apposition  to  flupa:  "  What  is  this  way,  Jesus?  "  Rut  Grabe  seems 
to  bring  out  most  clearly  the  true  meaning  of  the  ques 

I  26 


[ii.  23. 

and    he    replied    that    he    was    the    Saviour. 

9  On  account   of  these  words  some  believed 
that  Jesus  is  the  Christ.     Hut  the  sects  men- 
tioned above   did  not   believe  either  in  a  resur- 
rection   or  in    one's    coming    to    give    to    every 
man  according  to  his  works."1      Hut   as  many  as 

believecT  did     so     on    account    of    James. 

10  Therefore  when  many  even    of   the    rulers 
believed,  there   was    a    commotion    among 

the    lews  and   Scribes  and    Pharisees,  who   said 
hat  "there  was    danger  that   the    whole    people 
would  be  looking  tor  Jesus  as  the  Christ.     Com- 
ing therefore  in  a  body  to  James  they  said.  '  \\  e 
entreat  thee,   restrain   the  people  ;   for   they  are 
gone  astray  in  regard  to  Jesus,  as  if  he  were  the 
'Christ.17     \\'e  entreat  thee  to  persuade  all  that 
have  come  to  the  feast  of  the  Passover  concern- 
ing   fesus  ;    for  we   all   have  confidence   in  thee. 
For  we  bear  thee  witness,  as  do  all  the  people, 
that  thou  art  just,  and  dost  not  respect  per- 
il     sons.1*      Do    thou    therefore    persuade    the 
multitude  not   to  be  led  astray  concerning 
Jesus.      For  the  whole  people,  and  all  of  us  also, 
"have  confidence  in  thee.     Stand   therefore  upon 
the  pinnacle  of  the  temple.1'  that  from  that  high 
position  thou   mayest   be  clearly  seen,  and  that 
thy  words  may  be  readily  heard  by  all  the  peo- 
ple.     For  all   the  tribes,  with  the  Gentiles  also, 
are  come  together  on  account  of  the  Pass- 

12  over.'    The  aforesaid  Scribes  and  Pharisees 
therefore  placed  James  upon  the   pinnacle 

of  the  temple,  and  cried  out  to  him   and  said: 

''Thou  just  one,  in  whom  we  ought  all  to  have 

confidence,    forasmuch    as    the    people   are   led 

astray  after  Jesus,  the  crucified  one,  declare 

13  to  us,  what  is  the  gate  of  J  esus.'       And  he  an- 
swered with  a  loud  voice, '  Why  do  ye  ask  me 

i  -  Rufinus  translates  non  credidcrnnt  iieqiie  surrcxissc  nun 
&c  .  and  he  is  followed  by  Fabricius  ((',',/.  Apoc.  A  .  /'.  II.  p.  603) 
This  rendering  suits  the  context  excellently,  and  seems  to  be  tin 
only  rendering  which  gives  any  meaning  to  the  following  sentence 
And  yet,  as  our  Greek  stands,  it  is  impossible  to  translate  thus,  a 
both  aiTirrTflurii'  and  tp\>'i^evov  arc  lcft  entirely  indefinite.  _lh< 
Greek  runs,  OVK  iniarevov  ai'aaracru',  ov>n  tpvi/i.ror  a-rroSovvai 
K  T.A.  Cf.  the  notes  of  Valesius  and  of  Ilemichen  on  this  passage 
I  If  these  seven  sects,  so  far  as  we  know,  only  one,  the  Sadducees 
dUVIieved  in  the  resurrection  from  the  dead.  If  Hegesippus' words 
therefore,  be  understood  of  a  general  resurrection,  he  is  certainly  i: 

i'  Tliis  -entence  sufficiently  reveals  the  legendary  character  < 
Hegesippus'  ao  unit.  lames'  position  as  a  Christian  must  hav 
been  well  enough  known  to  prevent  such  a  request  being  made  t 
him  in  good  faith  (and  there  is  no  sign  that  it  was  made  in  any  othe 
spirit);  ami  at  any  rate,  after  his  reply  to  th.-m  already  recordec 
such  a  repetition  o'f  the  question  in  public  is  absurd.  Fabricius,  wh 
does  not  think  the  account  is  true,  says  that,  if  it  is,  the  Jews  seer 
to  have  asked  him  a  second  time,  thinking  that  they  could  eithe 
Hatter  or  frighten  him  into  denying  Christ. 

'•<  Cf.  Matt.  xxii.  10. 

i'  fjri  TO  -7.,ji'iM.r  roil  I'nuii.  Some  MSS.  read  7011  icpou,  an 
in  the  preceding  paragraph  that  phrase  occurs,  which  is  identic; 
with  the  phrase  used  in  Matt.  iv.  5,  where  the  devil  places  Christ  o 
a  pinnacle  of  the  temple.  i«/>'K  is  the  general  name  for  the  tempi 
buildings  as  a  whole,  while  >•«<.<;  is  a  specific  name  for  the  tem] 

ir°'''"Somc  MSS.,  with  Rufinus  and  the  editions  of  Valesius  an 
Heinichcn,  add  n-"'  port.  TTIK,  "  who  was  crucified,"  and  Stroll 
C'loss,  and  Cruse  foil  <w  this  reading  in  their  translations.  I'.nt  man 
of  the  best  MSS.  omit  the  words,  as  do  also  N'icephorus,  T.urtoi 
Ronth,  SchwegU-r,  l.iemmer,  and  Stiglohcr,  and  1  prefer  to  folio 
their  example,  as  the  words  seem  to  be  an  addition  from  the  previoi 

concerning  Jesus,  the  Son  of  Man?     He  himself 
sitteth  in  heaven  at  the  right  hand   of  the  great 
Power,   and    is    about    to    come    upon    the 
clouds  of  heaven.'  -1     And  when  many  were      14 
fully  convinced  and  gloried  in  the  testimony 
of    James,  and    said.  '  I  losanna    to  the  Son  of 
David,'   these  same  Scribes  and    Pharisees  said 
again  to  one  another,  '  \Ve  have  done  badly  in 
supplying  such  testimony  to  Jesus.     Hut  let  us 
go  up  and  throw  him  down,  in   order  that 
ley  may  be  afraid  to  believe  him.'    And      15 
icy  cried  out,  saying,  '  Oh  !   oh  '.   the  just 
lan    is   also   in   error.'      And   they   fulfilled    the 
ripture  written  in  Isaiah,"  '  Let  us  take  away"'1 
..e  just  man,  because  he  is  troublesome  to  us  : 
lerefore  they  shall  eat  the    fruit  of   their 
oings.'     So  they  went  up  and  threw  down      16 
le  just  man,  and  said  to  each  other,  '  Let 
s  stone    James  the  Just.'     And  they  began  to 
tone  him",  for  he  was  not  killed  by  the  fall  ;  but 
._  turned  and  knelt  down  and  said,  '  I  entreat 
hoc,  Lord  (lod  our  Father,-'  forgive  them, 
or   they  know  not  what  they  do.'"'     And      17 
vhile  they  were  thus  stoning   him  one  of 
he  priests  of  the  sons  of  Rechab,  the  son  of  the 
<ecliabites,-':   who  are  mentioned    by  Jeremiah 
he   prophet,-7   cried   out,   saying,  'Cease,  what 
lo    ye?      The    just     one    prayeth     for    you.'-" 

-1   Cf.  Matt.  xxvi.  f>4  and  Mark  xiv.  62. 

'--  Tsa  lii  10.  Jess  (p.  50)  says,  "  Audi  darm  ist  Hcgesipp 
mrein  Kind' seiner  Zcit.dass  cr  in  ausgcdehntem  Mas-e  irr.  Alien 
I'cstamentc  Wcissagungen  auffindet.  Aber  nut  Bezufi  darauf  darf 

nan  nicht  verge-sen,  —  i/n.<s  dcr^;,-ic'icii  inclir  oratorisehe  Benut- 
ng  als  exegetische  Krklarungen  sein  sollen."  Ct.  the  writer's 
ialo&tc  between  a  Christian  and  a  Je^  (Papisciis  and  /'////,>), 

'2.'''  npw/mer.  The  I.XX,  as  we  have  it  to-day,  reads  ?»]au>\L(.v ,  but 
Justin  Martyr's  Dial.,  chap.  13(1,  reads  dp.o^i'  (though  in  chaps. 
17  and  133  it  reads  .V-j-rw.mi  ).  Tertullian  also  in  his  Adv.  Marc. 
;',k'.  [II.  chap.  22,  shows  that  he  read  apw/in-,  for  he  translates 

-I    K.'pie  t>«  TraTtp.  "'   Luke  xxlll.  34. 

2«  •l'nv,t/3ti>,  which  is  simply  the  reproduction  in  Greek  letters 
of  the  Hebrew  plural,  and  is  equivalent  to  "  the  Rechabites."  But 
Hegesippus  uses  it  without  any  article  as  if  it  were  the  name  of  an 
dividual,  just  as  he  uses  the  name  'l'))XaP  which  immediately  pre- 
•edes.  The  Rechabites  were  a  tribe  who  took  their  origin  from  Je- 
houadab,  the  son  of  Kcchab,  who  appears  from  i  Chron.  ii.  55  to 
have  belonged  to  a  branch  of  the  Kenitcs,  the  Arabian  tribe  which 
came  into  Palestine  with  the  Israelites.  Jehonadab  enjoined  ujion 
his  descendants  a  nomadic  and  ascetic  mode  of  life,  which  they 
ibserved  with  strictness  for  centuries,  and  received  a  bless- 
ing from  God  on  account  of  their  steadfastness  (Jer.  xxxv.  19). 
That  a  Rechabite,  who  did  not  belong  to  the  tribe  of  Jndah,  nor 
even  to  the  genuine  people  of  Israel,  should  have  been  a  priest 
seems  at  first  sight  inexplicable.  Different  solutions  have  been  of- 
fered! Some  think  that  Hegesippus  was  mistaken,  — the  source 
from  which  he  took  his  account  having  confounded  this  ascetic 
Rechabite  with  a  priest,  —  but  this  is  hardly  probable,  flumptre, 
in  Smith's  /•'//>.  Diet.  art.  Rechabites  (which  see  for  a  full  account  of 
the  tribe),  thinks  that  the  blessing  pronounced  upon  them  by  God 
(Jer.  xxxv.  19)  included  their  solemn  adoption  among  the  people  of 
I  sriel,  and  their  incorporation  into  the  tribe  of  Levi,  and  therefore  into 
the  number  of  the  priests.  Others  (e.g.  Tillemont,  //.  E.  I.  p.  633) 
have  supposed  that  many  Jews,  including  also  priests,  embraced  the 
practices  and  the  institutions  of  the  Rechabites  and  were  therefore 
identified  with  them.  The  language  here,  however,  seems  to  imply 

native   Rechabite,  and  it  is  probable  that   Hegesippus  at  least  be 

Sieved  this  person  to  be  such,  whether  his  belief  was  correct  or  not. 
See  Routh,  I.  p.  243  sq.  27   See  Jer.  xxxv. 

="  In  Epiphanius,  Htrr.  LXXVIII.  14,  these  words  are  put  into 
the  mouth  of  Simeon,  the  son  of  Clopas;  from  which  some  have 
concluded  that  Simeon  had  joined  the  order  of  the  Kechabites;  but 
there  is  no  ground  for  such  an  assumption.  The  Simeon  of  K|  i- 
phanins  and  the  Rechabite  of  Hegesippus  are  not  necessarily  identi- 
cal They  represent  simply  varieties  of  the  original  account,  and 
Epiphanius',  as  the  more  exact,  was  undoubtedly  the  later  tradition, 
and  an  intentional  improvement  upon  the  vagueness  of  the  original. 

II.23-]  MARTYRDOM   OF   JAMES,   Till-:   LORD'S   BROTHER. 

i  27 

18  And  one  of  them,  who  was  a  fuller,  took 
the  club  with  which  he  beat  out  clothes  and 

struck  the  just  man  on  the  head.  And  thus  he 
suffered  martyrdom."1  And  they  buried  him  on 
the  spot,  by  the  temple,  and  his  monument  still 
remains  by  the  temple."'"  lie  became  a  true 
witness,  both  to  Jews  and  ('.reeks,  that  Jesus  is 
the  Christ.  And  immediately  Vespasian  be- 
sieged them."  " 

19  These    things    are    related   at   length   by 
Hegesippus,    who    is    in    agreement    with 

Clement:1-  James  was  so  admirable  a  man  and 
so  celebrated  among  all  for  his  justice,  that  the 
more  sensible  even  of  the  Jews  were  of  the  opin- 
ion that  this  was  the  cause  of  the  siege  of  Jeru- 
salem, which  happened  to  them  immediately 
after  his  martyrdom  for  no  other  reason  than 

20  their  daring  act  against  him.     Joscphus,  at 
least,  has  not  hesitated  to  testify  this  in  his 

writings,  where   he  says,1"  "These   things  hap- 
pened' to  the   Jews  to  avenge   James  the  Just, 
who  was  a  brother  of  Jesus,  that  is  called  the 
Christ.      For  the  Jews   slew  him,  although 

21  he  was  a  most  just  man."     And  the  same 
writer  records  his  death  also  in  the  twen- 
tieth   book   of  his  Antiquities  in  the    following 
words:114   "  l>ut  the  emperor,   when  he  learned 
of  the  death  of   Festus,   sent  Albirms1'55   to   be 

rocurator  of  Judea.     But  the  younger  Ananus,"'1 
•ho,  as  we  have  already  said;"7  had  obtained  the 
igh  priesthood,  was  of  an  exceedingly  bold  and 
eckless   disposition,      lie    belonged,   moreover, 
;j  the  sect  of  the  Sadducees,  who  are  the  most 
.ruel  of  all  the  Jews  in  the  execution  ot  judg- 
nent,  as  we  have  already  shown:1'"    Ananus,      22 
herefore,  being  of  this  character,  and  sup- 
losing  that  he  had  a  favorable  opportunity  on 
.ccount  of  the   fact  that   Festus  was  dead,  and 
Mbinus  was  still  on  the  way,  called  together  the 
Sanhedrim,  and  brought  before  them  the  brother 
if  Jesus,  the  so-called  Christ,  James  by  name, 
ogethcr  with  some  others,'"''1  and  accused  them 
>f  violating  the  law,  and  condemned  them 
o  be  stoned.4"     I  hit  those  in  the  city  who     23 
.eemed  most  moderate  and  skilled  in  the  law 
vere  very  angry  at  this,  and  sent  secretly  to  the 
<ing,41  requesting  him  to  order  Ananus  to  cease 
such  proceedings.      For  he  had  not   done  right 
ven  this  first  time.     And  certain  of  them  also 
vent  to  meet  Albinus,  who  was  journeying  from 
\lexandria,  and  reminded   him  that  it  was  not 
awful  for  Ananus  to  summon  the  Sanhedrim 
without  his  knowledge.4-    And  Albinus,  being     24 

311  Ananus  was  the  fifth  son  of  the  high  priest  Annas  mentioned 
.11  the  N.  T.  His  father  and  his  four  In-other-;  had  heen  high  priests 
)efore  him,  as  Josephus  tells  us  in  this  same  paragraph.  He  was 
appointed  high  priest  by  Agrippa  II.  in  61  or  62  A.n.,  and  held  the 
office  but  three  months. 

•'"  Ananus'  accession  is  recorded  by  Joscphus  in  a  sentence  imme- 
diately preceding,  which  Knsebins,  who  abridges  Josephus'  account 
somewhat,  lias  omitted  in  this  quotation. 

s  I  can  find  no  previous  mention  in  Josephus  of  the  hardness  of 
t  Sadducees;  but  see  Keland's  note  upon  this  passage  in  Josephus. 
It  may  be  that  we  have  lost  a  part  of  the  account  of  the  Sadducees 
and  Pharisees. 

«'  Ktil  irapayayiav  eis  aiiro  [TOI<  a.Se\<pov  Irjcrou  rov  \pio"ron 
niJ.ei'OV,  'Ia/c(o/3o?  ovo/ua  avTw,  K,U]  Tira?  [ere'pov?],  (c.T.A.  _Some 
critics  regard  the  bracketed  words  as  spurious,  but  Neander,  (,csch. 
tier  Pflanznng  und  Leitnngdcr  Christlichcn  Kirclic,  .sth  t-d., 
p.  445,  note,  contends  for  their  genuineness,  and  this  is  now  Un- 
common opinion  of  critics.  It  is  in  fact  very  difficult  to  suppose 
that  a  Christian  in  interpolating  the  passage,  would  have  referred  to 
James  as  the  brother  of  the  "  so-called  Christ."  ( >n  the  other  hand, 
as  the  words  stand  there  is  no  good  reason  to  doubt  their  genuineness 
•"'  The  date  of  the  martyrdom  of  James,  given  here  by  Josephus, 
,.,6ior62  A.I),  (at  the  time  of  the  Passover,  according  to  Hegesippus, 
§  10,  above).  There  is  no  reason  for  doubting  this  date  which  is 
given  with  such  exactness  by  Josephus,  and  it  is  further  confirmed 
by  liusebius  in  his  Citron.,  who  puts  James's  martyrdom  in  the  sev- 
enth year  of  Nero,  i.e.  61  A.n.,  while  Jerome  puts  it  in  the  eighth 
year  of  Nero.  The  Clementines  and  the  Chronicon  1'nschali', 
which  state  that  James  survived  Peter,  and  are  therefore  cited  in 
support  of  a  later  date,  are  too  late  to  be  of  any  weight  over  against 
such  an  exact  statement  as  that  of  Josephus,  especially  since  1  eter 
and  James  died  at  such  a  distance  from  one  another.  Hegesippus 
has  been  cited  over  and  over  again  by  historians  as  assigning  the 
date  of  the  martyrdom  to  69  A.n.,  and  as  thus  being  in  direct  conflict 
with  Josephus;  as  a  consequence  some  follow  his  supposed  date, 
others  that  of  Josephus.  P. tit  I  can  find  no  reason  for  asserting  that 
Hegesippus  assigns  the  martyrdom  to  69.  Certainly  his  words  in 
this  chapter,  which  are  referred  to,  by  no  means  necessitate  such  an 
assumption.  He  concludes  his  account  with  the  words  KIU  .i^in 
OiJtcTjrairiaros  TroAiopicei  avTous.  The  TroAiopicn  aO-rous  is  certainly 
to  be  referred  to  the  commencement  of  the  war  (not  to  the  siege  of 
the  city  of  Jerusalem,  which  was  undertaken  by  Titus,  not  by  V  es- 
pasian),  i.e.  to  the  year  67  A.n.,  and  in  such  an  account  as  this,  in 
which  the  overthrow  of  the  Jews  is  designedly  presented  in  Conner 
tion  with  the  death  of  James,  it  is  hyper-criticism  to  insist  that  the 
word  tvfliiT  must  indicate  a  space  of  time  of  only  a  few  month' 
duration.  It  is  a  very  indefinite  word,  and  the  most  we  can  di 
from  Hegesippus'  account  is  that  not  long  before  Vespasian's  inva- 
sion of  Judea,  James  was  slain.  The  same  may  be  said  in  regard  t. 
Eusebius-  report  in  Ilk.  III.  chap,  n,  §  i,  which  certainly  is 
definite  enough  to  be  cited  as  a  contradiction  of  his  express  st. 
ment  in  his  Chronicle.  Hut  however  it  may  be  with  tins  report 
and  that  of  Hegesippus,  the  date  given  by  Josephus  is  und. 
to  be  accepted  as  correct.  41  Agrippa  11. 

'  ' 



[II.  23. 

persuaded  by  their  representations,  wrote-  in  anger 
in  Ananus,  threatening  him  with  punishment.  And 
the  king,  Agrippa,  in  consequence,  deprived  him 
of  the  high  "priesthood,43  which  he  had  held  three 

months,    and    appointed    Jesus,   the   son   of 
25      DamiKcus."  "     These   things   are   recorded 

in  regard  to  James,  who  is  said  to  be  the 
author  of  Uie  first  of  the  so-called  catholic: 4"  epis- 
tles.  I'.ut  it  is  to  be  observed  that  it  is  dis- 
puted ;4I!  at  least,  not  many  of  the  ancients  have  | 
mentioned  it.  as  is  the  case  like\vise_  with  the 
epistle  that  bears  the  name  of  Jude,47  which  is 

Spiov  lost  reads  iiecivov  (referring  to  Agrippa)  instead  of  avToi, 
(referring  to  Albums),  and  consequently  draws  the  conclusion  that 
the  Sanhedrim  could  be  called  only  with  the  consent  of  Agrippa,  and 
tint  therefore  Ananus  had  acted  contrary  to  the  rights  of  Agrippa, 
but  not  contrary  to  the  rights  of  Albinus.  I'.ut  the  reading  ai-rou  is 
supported  by  overwhelming  MS.  authority,  and  must  be  regarded  as 
undoubtedly  correct.  I  lusion,  therefore,  winch  Ins  accept- 

ance of  the  ;•:••:•••••  forced  upon  him,  is  quite  incorrect.  I  he  pas- 
sage appears  to  imply  that  the  Sanhedrim  could  be  called  only  with 
the  consent  of  the  procurator,  and  it  has  been  so  interpreted :  but  as 
Schiirer  points  out  (Gr*  /,.  dcr  Jndc,,  i,n  XtitaUtrJenu  (  hristi, 
o  ,'  ,  sq  ),  this  conclusion  is  incorrect,  and  all  that  the  passage  im- 
plies is  that  the  Sanhedrim  could  not  h<.ld  a  sovereign  process,  that 
is,  could  not  meet  for  the  purpose  of  passing  sentence  of  death  ar 
cxccuting  the  sentence,  during  the  absence  or  without  the  consent  c 
the  procurator.  For  the  transaction  of  ordinary  business  tl 
sent  of  the  procurator  was  not  necessary.  Compare  the  I  ommenta- 
rieson  John  xviii.  31,  and  the  remarks  of  Schiirer  in  the  passage 
referred  to  above. 

"  Agrippa.  as  remarked  above,  chap.  19,  note  4,  exercised  gov- 
ernment over  the  temple,  and  enjoyed  the  power  ol  appointing  and 
removing  the  high  priests. 

11   Of  lesns,  the  son  of  I>amn;cus,  nothing  further  is  known.    )1 
was  succeeded,  while  Albinus  was  still  procurator,  by  Jesus,  the  son 
of  C.amaliel  (Ant.  XX.  9.  4). 

>••  This  term  was  applied  to  all  or  a  part  of  these  seven  epistles 
by  the  Alexandrian  Clement.  On  gen,  and  Dionysius,  and  since  the  , 
time  of  Knsebius  has  been  the  common  designation.  Ihe  word  is 
used  in  the  sense  of"  general,"  to  denote  that  the  epistles  are  encyc- 
lical letters  addressee!  to  no  particular  persons  or  congregations, 
though  this  is  not  true  of  11.  and  111.  John,  which,  however,  are 
classed  with  the  others  on  account  of  their  supposed  Johanninc 
authorship,  and  consequent  close  connection  with  his  tirst  epistle. 
The  word  was  not  first  used,  as  some  have  held,  in  the  sense  of 
"canonical,"  to  denote  the  catholic  or  general  acceptance  of  the 
epistle,  — a  meaning  which  Eusebius  contradicts  in  this  very  pas- 
sage, and  which  the  history  of  the  epistles  themselves  (live  oi  the 
seven  being  among  the  antilegomena)  sufficiently  refutes.  See 
Holmnann's  Einleitittig,  p.  47-  siiq.,  and  \\eiss,  ibid.  p.  89  sqq. 

"'•  roOt-iitrai  It  is  common  to  translate  the  word  rotfo?,  spuri- 
ous" (and  the  kindred  verb,  "to  be  spurious-;-,  but  it  is  plain 
enough  from  this  passage,  a  also  from  others,  that  Euscbius  did  not 
employ  the  word  in  that  en  e.  He  commonly  used  it  in  fact,  in  a 
loose  way,  to  mean  "  disputed,"  in  the  same  sense  in  which  he  often 
employed  the  word  ii-TiAe-yo^ro?.  Liicke,  indeed,  maintained  that 
Kuscbins  always  used  the  words  roOo?  and  ,'u 'TiA.  70,- ,  ro<r  as  synony- 
mous: but  in  Hk.  III.  chap.  25.  as  pointed  out  in  note  i  on  that 
chapter,  he  employed  the  words  as  respective  designate 
distinct  classes  of  honks. 

The  Kpistle  of  James  is  classed  by  Eusebius  •  in  I.k.  111.  chap.. 
2O  .,,11011"  the  antilegomena.  The  ancient  testimonies  for  its  au- 
thenticity are  very  few.  It  was  used  by  n  '  one,  except  Hennas. 
down  to  the  end  of  the  second  century.  Iremeus  seems  to  have 
known  the  epistle  (his  works  exhibit  some  apparent  reminiscences 
of  it),  but  he  nowhere  .lire,  tly  cites  it.  The  Muratorian  Fragment 
omits  it,  but  the  Syria,:  I'eshito  contains  it,  and  Clement  of  Alexan- 
dria shows  a  few  faint  reminiscences  in  his  extant  works  and 
accordin"  to  Kusebius,  VI.  14,  wrote  commentaries  upon  J  udc 
and  the  other  catholic  epistles."  It  is  quoted  frequently  by  Origen, 
who  first  connects  it  with  the  "  I'.mther  of  the  Lord,"  but  does  not 
express  himself  with  derision  as  to  its  authenticity.  !•  rom  his  tune- 
on  it  was  commonl)  as  the  work  nf  "  James,  the  Lords 
brother  "  Eusebius  throws  it  among  the  antilegomena;  not  neces- 
sarily because  he  considered  it  unauthentic,  but  because  the  early 
testimonies  for  it  are  too  few  to  raise  it  to  the  dignity  of  one  of  the 
lu.mologoumena  (see  l!k.  111.  chap.  25,  note  i).  Luther  rejected 
the  epistle  upon  purely  dogmatic  grounds.  The  advanced  criti,  a 
school  are  unanimous  in  considering  it  a  post-apostolic  work,  and 
many  conservative  scholars  agree  with  them.  See  Holtxmann  s 
RMfitHtig,  p.  475  sqq.,  and  Weiss'  Kinlfit.n,^  P.  3</>  "I'l-  I  •  •• 
latter  defends  its  authenticity  (i.e.  the  authorship  of  James,  the 
brother  of  the  Lord),  and,  in  agreement  with  many  "(her  scholars  of 
conservative  tendencies,  throws  its  origin  back  into  the  early  part  of 

'  C47  The  authenticity  of  the  F.pistle  of  Jude   (also  classed  among 

also  one  of  the  seven  so-called  catholic  epistles. 
Nevertheless  we  know  that  these  also,4s  with  the 
rest,  have  been  read  publicly  in  very  many 


Annianus  the  First  liishop   of  the    Church  of 
Alexandria   after  Mark. 

YYiiF.x  Nero  was  in  the  eighth  year  of  his 
reign.'  Annianus'-  succeeded  Mark  the  evangelist 
in 'the  administration  of  the  parish  of  Alexan- 


The  Persecution  under  Nero  in  which  Paul  and 
Peter  were  honored  at  Rome  with  Martyrdom 
in  Pn-half  of  Religion. 

YVm.x  the  government  of  Nero  was  now  1 
firmly  established,  he  began  to  plunge  into 
unholy  pursuits,  and  armed  himself  even  against 
the  religion  of  the  (loci  of  the  universe. 
To  describe  the  greatness  of  his  depravity  2 
does  not  lie  within  the  plan  of  the  present 
work.  As  there  are  many  indeed  that  have 
recorded  his  history  in  most  accurate  narratives,1 
every  one  may  at  his  pleasure  learn  from  them 
the  coarseness  of  the  man's  extraordinary  mad- 
ness. under  the  influence  of  which,  after  he 
had  accomplished  the  destruction  of  so  many 
myriads  without  any  reason,  he  ran  into  such 
blood-guiltiness  that  he  did  not  spare  even  his 
nearest  relatives  and  dearest  friends,  but  de- 
stroyed his  mother  and  his  brothers  and  his 
wife',*  with  very  many  others  of  his  own  family, 

the  antilegomena  by  Eusebius  in  Rk  III.  chap.  25)  is  about  as 
ell  supported  as  that  of  the  Kpistle  of  James.  Ihe  Peshito  does 
not  contain  it,  and  the  Syrian  Church  in  general  rejected  it  for  a 
number  of  centuries.  The  Muratorian  Fragment  accepts  it,  and 
Tertnlhan  evidently  considered  it  a  work  of  Jude,  the  apostle  (see 
lie  Cnitit  I'cm.  I.  3).  The  first  to  quote  from  it  is  Clement  oi 
Alexandria,  who  wrote  a  commentary'  upon  it  in  connection  with 
the  other  catholic  epistles,  according  to  Kusebius,  V  I.  14.  i.  <  >ngen 
looked  upon  it  much  as  he  looked  upon  the  Epistle  of  James,  but 
,lid  not  make  the  "Jude,  the  brother  of  James,"  one  of  the  twelve 
,p,,stlcs.  Kusebius  treats  it  as  he  does  James,  and  Luther,  followed 
by  many  modern  conservative  scholars  (among  them  .\eander), 
Its  defenders  commonly  ascribe  it  to  Jude,  the  brother  oi 
.'he  Lord',  in  distinction  from  Jude  the  apostle,  and  put  its  oomposi- 
tion  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  'Ihe  advanced  critical 
school  unanimously  deny  its  authenticity,  and  most  oi  them  throw 
its  composition  into  the  second  century,  although  some  put  it  back 
into  the  latter  part  of  the  first.  See  Ilolt/niann,  p.  501. 

'«  (  )n  the  Epistles  of  Peter,  see  Bk.  III.  chap.  3,  notes  i  and  2. 
(  hi  the  Epistles  of  John,  see  ibid.  chap.  44,  notes  18  and  19. 

"   ,Y  -Aeio-rai?  eK/cA^a-iai;. 

i  6-    \.r>.     With    this  agrees  Jerome's   version   of  _the    CAroti., 
while  the  Armenian  version  gives  the  seventh  year  of  Nero. 

-  Annianus,  according  to  Hk.  111.  chap.  14-  below,  held  h 
twenty-two  years.     In  A/>»se.  Cnist.  VII.  46  he  is  said  to  ha 
ordained  by  "Mark  as  the  first  bishop  of  Alexandria.      1  he 
Orient.  80   (according  to  Westcott  in  the  Diet,  of  Christ 
reports  that  he  was  appointed  by  Mark   after  he  had  perf 
miracle    upon  him.     He  is  commemorated  in  the    Roman 
ology  with  St.  Mark,  on  April  25. 

Upon    Mark's   connection   with   Egypt,  see   above,    chap.    10, 

"Oti  Tacitus    (Aim.    XIII.  -XVI.),  Suetonius    (AV>v),aiid    Dion 
^'Nero's  mother,  Agrippina  the  younger,  daughter  of  Ormani- 

rmed   a 

II.  25.] 



as   he  would    private    and  public  enemies, 

3  with    various    kinds    of   deaths.     But    with 
all    these  things  this  particular  in  the  cat- 
alogue of  his  crimes  was  still  wanting,  that  he 
was    the    first    of    the    emperors    who    showed 

himself   an  enemy  of   the   divine    religion. 

4  The  Roman  Tertullian  is  likewise  a  witness 
of  this.     He  writes  as  follows  : 3  "  Examine 

your  records.  There  you  will  find  that  Nero 
was  the  first  that  persecuted  this  doctrine,4 
particularly  then  when  after  subduing  all  the 
east,  he  exercised  his  cruelty  against  all  at 
Rome.5  We  glory  in  having  such  a  man  the 
leader  in  our  punishment.  For  whoever  knows 
him  can  understand  that  nothing  was  con- 
demned by  Nero  unless  it  was  something 

5  of   great    excellence."     Thus    publicly    an- 
nouncing himself  as  the  first  among  God's 

chief  enemies,  he  was  led  on  to  the  slaughter  of 
the  apostles.  It  is,  therefore,  recorded  that 
Paul  was  beheaded  in  Rome  itself,0  and  that 

cus  and  of  Agrippina  the  elder,  was  assassinated  at  Nero's  command 
in  60  A.n.  in  her  villa  on  Lake  Lucrine,  after  an  unsuccessful  attempt 
to  drown  her  in  a  boat  so  constructed  as  to  break  to  pieces  while  she 
was  sailing  in  it  on  the  lake.  His  younger  brother  Britannicus  was 
poisoned  by  his  order  at  a  banquet  iu  55  A.n.  His  first  wife  Octavia 
was  divorced  in  order  that  be  might  marry  Poppasa,  the  wife  of  his 
friend  Otho,  and  was  afterward  put  to  death.  Poppsea  herself  died 
from  the  effects  of  a  kick  given  her  by  Nero  while  she  was  with 
child.  :;  Tertullian,  -//,-'/.  V. 

*  We  learn  from  Tacitus,  Ann.  XV.  39,  that  Nero  was  suspected 
to  be  the  author  of  the  great  Roman  conflagration,  which  took  place 
in  64  A.I).  (Pliny,  //.  .V.  XVII.  i,  Suetonius,  38,  and  Dion  Cassius, 
LX1I.  18,  state  directly  that  he  was  the  author  of  it),  and  that  to 
avert  this  suspicion  from  himself  he  accused  the  Christians  of  the 
deed,  and  the  terrible  Neronian  persecution  which  Tacitus  describes 
so  fully  was  the  result.  Gibbon,  and  in  recent  times  especially  Schil- 
ler (Geschichte  der  Romischen  Kaiserzeit  iiutcr  der  Rcgiernny 
des  Nero,  p.  584  sqq.),  have  maintained  that  Tacitus  was  mistaken 
in  calling  this  a  persecution  of  Christians,  which  was  rather  a  perse- 
cution of  the  lews  as  a  whole,  lint  we  have  no  reason  for  impeach- 
ing Tacitus'  accuracy  in  this  case,  especially  since  we  remember 
that  the  Jews  enjoyed  favor  with  Nero  through  his  wife  Poppaea. 
What  is  very  significant,  Josephus  is  entirely  silent  in  regard  to  a 
persecution  of  his  countrymen  under  Xero.  We  may  assume  as 
probable  (with  Ewald  and  Renan)  that  it  was  through  the  sugges- 
tion of  the  Jews  that  Nero's  attention  was  drawn  to  the  Christians, 
and  he  was  led  to  throvv  the  guilt  upon  them,  as  a  people  whose 
habits  would  best  give  countenance  to  such  a  suspicion,  and  most 
easily  excite  the  rage  of  the  populace  against  them.  This  was  not 
a  persecution  of  the  Christians  in  the  strict  sense,  that  is,  it  was  not 
aimed  against  their  religion  as  such;  and  yet  it  assumed  such  pro- 
portions and  was  attended  with  such  horrors  that  it  always  lived  in 
the  memory  of  the  Church  as  the  first  and  one  of  the  mo<t  awful  of 
a  long  line  of  persecutions  instituted  against  them  by  imperial  Rome, 
and  it  revealed  to  them  the  essential  conflict  which  existed  between 
Rome  as  it  then  was  and  Christianity. 

•>  The  Greek  translator  of  Tertullian's  Apology,  whoever  he  may 
have  been  (certainly  not  Eusebius  himself;  see  chap.  2,  note  y, 
above),  being  ignorant  of  the  Latin  idiom  cum  maxitne,  has  made 
very  bad  work  of  this  sentence,  and  has  utterly  destroyed  the  se:;.^e 
of  the  original,  which  runs  as  follows:  illic  repcrictis  pi-iiiiitiii 
Neronem  in  hanc  sectain  cum  maxiine  Romte  oricnti'in  Ca'sa-  gladio  fcrocissc  ("There  you  will  find  that  Nero  was  the 
first  to  assail  with  the  imperial  sword  the  Christian  sect,  which  was 
then  especially  flourishing  in  Rome").  The  Greek  translation 
reads:  exei  tupjjtrtTt;  n-pwTOf  Ncpwra  rouro  TU  &oy[ia,  »j;  LXH  .idAirrra. 
f v  T'uj/nr)  T7ji'  afaro^v  Tracrar  vTrorafas-  cu/xos'  171'  e*<r  TTHI'T-K;,  Ou.j- 
foi'Ta,  in  the  rendering  of  which  I  have  followed  Cruse,  who  has  re- 
produced the  idea  of  the  Greek  translator  with  as  much  fidelity  as 
the  sentence  will  allow.  The  German  translators,  Stroth  and  Closs, 
render  the  sentence  directly  from  the  original  Latin,  and  thus  pre- 
serve the  meaning  of  Tertullian,  which  is,  of  course,  wh  it  the  Gre-k 
translator  intended  to  reproduce.  I  have  not,  however,  felt  at  lib- 
erty in  the  present  case  to  follow  their  example. 

11  This  tradition,  that  Paul  suffered  martyrdom  in  Rome,  is  early 
and  universal,  and  disputed  by  no  counter-tradition,  and  may  be 
accepted  as  the  one  certain  historical  fact  known  about  Paul  out.-ide 
of  the  New  Testament  accounts.  Clement  (Ad.  Cur.  chap.  5)  is  the 
first  to  mention  the  death  of  Paul,  and  seems  to  imply,  though  he 
does  not  directly  state,  that  his  death  took  place  in  Rome  during 
the  persecution  of  Nero.  Caius  (quoted  below,  §  j),  a  writer  of 

VOL.    1.  K 

Peter  likewise  was  crucified  under  Nero.'     Tin--. 
account  of  Peter  and  Paul  is  substantiated  by  the 
fact  that  their  names  are  preserved  in  the  ceme- 
teries   of  that    place    even   to   the   present 
day.     It    is   confirmed  likewise   by  Caius,8       G 

the  fir:  t  quarter  of  the  third  century,  is  another  witness  to  his  death 
in  Koine,  as  is  also  Uionysius  of  Corinth  (quoted  below,  §  8)  of  the 
second  century.  Origen  (quoted  by  Euseb.  III.  i)  states  that  hr 
was  martyred  in  Rome  under  Xero.  Tertullian  (at  the  end  of  the 
second  century),  in  his  /'/•  prcescriptione  Htrr.  chap.  36,  is  still 
move  distinct,  recording  that  Paul  was  beheaded  in  Rome.  Kuse- 
bius  and  Jerome  accept  this  tradition  unhesitatingly,  and  we  may 
do  likewise.  As  a  Roman  citizen,  we  should  expect  him  to  meet 
deaihby  the  sword. 

7  The  tradition  that  Peter  suffered  martyrdom  in  Rome  is  as  old 
and  as  universal  as  that  in   regard  to  Paul,   but    owing  to  a  great 
amount  of  falsehood  which  became  mixed  with  the  original   tradition 
by  the  end  of  the  second  century   the  whole   has  been   rejected  as 
untrue  by  some  modern  critics,  who  go  so  far  as  to  deny  that  Peter 
was   ever   at    Rome.       (See    especially    Litisius'    /'/>    Cjiti\\'t'n    dsr 
romisclien  Pftrus-Sagc,  Kiel,  1872  ;  a  summary  of  his  view  is  given 
by  Jackson  in  the  Presbyterian  ( >:u»'ter.'y  and  /'/'.  \ceton  AYrvrr.', 
1876,   p.   265    sq.       In    Lipsius'    latest   work   upon   this   subject,   Die 
Actn   Pauli  nnd  Petri,    1887,  he   makes    important   concessions.^ 
The  tradition  is,  however,   too  strong  to  be  set  aside,  and  there  is 
absolutely  no  trace  of  any  conflicting  tradition.     \Ve  may  therefore 
assume  it  as  overwhelmingly  probable  that  Peter  was   iu    Rome   and 
suffered  martyrdom  there.      His  martyrdom  is  plainly  referred  to  in 
John  xxi.  10,  though  the  place  of  it  is  not  given.     Ti.e  first  extra- 
biblical  witness  to  it  is  Clement  of  Rome.     He  also  leaves  the  place 
of  the    martyrdom  unspecified   (Ad  Cor.  5),  but   he    evidently   as- 
sumes the  place  as  well  known,  and  indeed  it  is  impossible  that  the 
early   Church  could  have   known   of  the   death   of  Peter   and   Paul 
without  knowing   where  they  died,  and  there  is  in  neither  case   a 
single  opposing  tradition.     Ignatius  (Ad  Rom.  chap.  4)  connects 
Paul  and  Peter  in  an  especial  way  with  the   Roman  Church,  which 
seems   plainly   to   imply    that   Peter   had   been    in    Rome.     Phlegon 
(supposed  to  be  the  Emperor  Hadrian  writing  under  the  name  of  a 
favorite  slave)  is  said  by  Origen   (Contra   Cclsnin,  II.  14)  to  have 
confused  Jesus  and   Peter  in   his   Chronicles.     This  is  very  signifi- 
cant as  implying  that  Peter  must  have  been  well  known  in  Rome. 
Dionysius,   quoted   below,   distinctly    states    that    Peter    labored   in 
Rome,  and  Cains  is  a  witness  for  it.     So  Iren:eus,  Clement,  Tertul- 
lian, and  later  Fathers  without  a  dissenting  voice.     The  first  to  men- 
tion Peter's  death  by  crucifixion  (unless  John  xxi.   18  be  supposed 
to  imply  it)    is  Tertullian    (De  Prtrscrip.  Ilirr.  chap.  36),  but  he 
mentions  it  as  a  fact  already  known,  and  tradition  since  his  time  is 
so  unanimous  in  regard  to  it  that  \\e  may  consider  it  in  the  highest 
degree  probable.     On  the  tradition   reported  by  Origen,  that  Peter 
was  crucified  head  downward,  see  below,  Bk.  111.  chap,  i,  where 
Origen  is  quoted  by  Eusebius. 

8  The  history  of  Caius  is  veiled  in  obscurity.     All  that  we  know 
of  him  is  that  he  was  a  very  learned  ecclesiastical  writer,  who  at 
the  beginning  of  the  third  century  held  a  disputation  with  Proclus  in 
Rome   (cf.   Bk.  VI.  chap.  20,  below).     The  accounts  of  him  given 
by  Jerome,  Theodoret,  and  Niccphorus  are  drawn  from   Eusebius 
and  furnish  us  no  new  data.     Photius,  however  v />'///.  XLVI1L), 
reports  that  Caius  was  said  to  have  been  a  presbvter  of  the  Roman 
Church  during   the  episcopates   of  Victor   and  /'ephyrinus,  and  to 
have  been  elected  "  Bishop  of  the  Gentiles,"  and  hence  lie  is   com- 
monly spoken  of  as  a  pp-sbyter  of  the   Roman,  though  the 
tradition  rests  certainly  upon  a  very  slender  foundation,  as  Photius 
lived  some  six  hundred  years  after  Caius,  and  is  the  first  to  mention 
the  fact.     Photius  also,  although  with  hesitation,  ascribes  to  Caius  a 
work  On  the  Cause  of  the    Universe,  and   one  called    The  Laby- 
rinth, and   another  Against  the  Heresy  of  A  demon  (see  below, 
Bk.  V.  chap.   28,   note  i).     The    first    of  these   (and    by  some    the 
last  also),  is  now  commonly  ascribed  to  Hippolytus.     Though  the 
second  may  have  been   written  by  Caius  it  is  no   longer  extant,  and 
hence    all    that   we   have   of  his   writings   are   the    fragments   of  the 
Dialogue  -c.'ith  Procins  pro-served  by  Eusebius  iu  this  chapter  and 
in  Bk'.  III.  chaps.  28,  31.     The  absence  of  any  notice  of  the  personal 
activity  of  so  distinguished  a  writer  has  led  some  critics  (e.g.  Salmon 
in  Smith  and  Vvace,  1.  p.  386,  who  refers  to   Lightfoot,  'journal  of 
I'/iiloli'^y,  I.  go.  as  h  ilding  the  same  view)  to  assume  the  identity 

and  that  thus  as  the  !i  -ok  fell  into  the  hands  of  strangers  the  tradi- 
tion arose  of  a  writer  Caius  who  in  reality  never  had  a  separate  exist- 
ence. This  theorv  is  ingenious,  and  iu  many  respects  plausible,  and 
certainly  cannot  be  disproved  (owing  chiefly  to  our  lack  of  knowledge 
about  Cains),  and  yet  in  t'.e  absence  of  any  proof  that  Hippolytus  ac- 
tually bore  the  pra;nomen  Caius  it  can  be  regarded  as  no  more  than  a 
bare  hypothesis.  The  two  ate  distinguished  by  Kusehius  and  by  all 
the  writers  who  mention  them.  On  Cains'  attitude  toward  lite  Apoc- 
alypse, sec  Bk.  III.  chap.  28,  note  4;  and  on  his  opinion  1:1  regard 
to  the  authorship  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  see  Bk.  VI.  chap. 
20,  and  Bk.  III.  chap.  3,  note  17.  The  fragments  of  Cains  (includ- 
ing fragments  from  the  L''t/.'f  I  al'vriiith ,  mentioned  above)  arc- 
given  with  annotations  in  Kouth's  A', .'.  S,n  >-,/•,  1 1.  125-158,  and  in 
translation  (with  the  addition  of  the  Muratorian  Kragmeni,  wrongly 
ascribed  to  Caius  by  its  discoveiefl  in  \\\c  Ant,--*\'icftif  Fathers, 

i  10 



a  member  of  the  Church,"  who  arose '"  under 
Xephyrinus,11  bishop  of  Rome.  He,  in  a  pub- 
lished disputation  with  Proclus.1-  the  leader  of 
the  Phrygian  heresy, 1:;  speaks  as  follows  con- 
cerning the  places  where  the  sacred  corpses 

7  of  the  aforesaid   apostles  are   laid:    "Hut14 
I    can   show  the  trophies    of  the    apostles. 

For    if  you  will  go  to  the  Vatican   ll  or  to  the 

Ostian  way."''  you  will   find  the  trophies  of  those 

who  laid  the  foundations  of  tlu's  church."1' 

8  And    that    they    both    suffered    martyrdom 
at   the  same  time  is  stated    by   1  >ion,ysius, 

bishop  of  Corinth, 1S  in  his  epistle  to  the  Ro- 
mans.111 in  the  following  words  :  "  You  have  thus 
by  such  an  admonition  bound  together  the 
planting  of  Tiler  and  of  Paul  at  Rome  and 
Corinth.  For  both  of  them  planted  and  like- 
wise taught  us  in  our  Corinth.-"  And  they 

taught  together  in  like  manner  in  Italy,  and  suf- 
fered martyrdom  at  the  same  time."'  1  have 
quoted  these  things  in  order  that  the  truth  of 
the  history  might  be  still  more  confirmed. 


•    t/c/c7j<rta<i"s  «. 

111  yt-yorux;.  Cruse  translates  "born";  but  Eusebius  cannot 
have  meant  that,  f-r  in  Bk.  \'  I .  (ha]..  20  lie  tells  us  tint  Cains' dis- 
putation with  Proclus  was  held  during  tin-  episcopate  of  Zephyrinus. 
He  used  ytyoi'uxr,  therefore,  as  to  indicate  that  at  that  time  he  came 
into  public  notice,  as  we  use  the  word  "  arose." 

11  On  Zephyrinns,  see  below,  Bk.  V.  chap.  28,  §  7. 

12  This    1'roclns   probably  introduced  Montanism  into  Rome   at 
the  beginning  of  the  third  century.     According  to  Pseudo-Tertullian 
(A dt\  otnncs  H<r>-.  chap.  7)  he  was  a  leader  of  one  division  of  the 
Muntanists,  the  cither  division  being  composed  of  followers  of  ;Es- 
chines.     He  is  probably  to  be  identified  with  the  Pi'^cnlns  nosier, 
classed  by  Tertnllian,  in  Adv.  I'al.  chap.  5,  with  Justin  Martyr, 
Miltiades,  and  Iremcus  as  a  successful  opponent  of  heresy. 

i;;  The  sect  of  the  Montanists.  Called  the  "  Phrygian  heresy," 
from  the  fact  that  it  took  its  rise  in  Phrygia.  Upon  Montanism, 
see  below,  Bk.  IV.  chap.  27,  anil  especially  Bk.  V.  chap.  16  sqq. 

n  The  St  here  makes  it  probable  that  Cains,  in  reply  to  certain 
claims  of  Proclns,  was  asserting  over  against  him  the  ability  of  the 
Roman  chinch  to  exhibit  the  true  trophies  of  the  greatest  of  all  the 
apostles.  And  what  these  claims  of  Proclns  were  can  perhaps  be 
gathered  from  his  words,  quoted  by  Eusebius  in  Bk.  III.  chap.  31, 
S  4,  in  which  Philip  and  his  daughters  are  said  to  have  been  buried 
in  Hierapolis.  That  these  two  sentences  were  closely  connected  in 
the  original  is  quite  possible. 

i;'  According  to  an  ancient  tradition,  Peter  was  crucified  upon  the 
hili  of  Janiculum,  near  the  Vatican,  where  the  Church  of  San  Pietro 
in  M  ."itorio  now  stands,  and  the  hole  in  which  his  cross  stood  is 
still  shown  to  the  trustful  visitor.  A  more  probable  tradition  makes 
the  scene  of  execution  the  Vatican  hill,  where  Nero's  circus  was, 
and  where  the  persecution  took  place.  Barqnius  makes  the  whole 
ridge  on  the  right  bank  of  the  Tiber  one  hill,  and  thus  reconciles 
the  two  traditions.  In  the  fourth  century  the  remains  of  Peter  were 
transferred  from  the  Catacombs  of  San  Sebastiano  (where  they  arc 
said  to  have  been  interred  in  258  A.n.)  to  the  Basilica  of  St.  Peter, 
which  occupied  the  sight  of  the  present  basilica  on  the  Vatican. 

"'  Paul  was  beheaded,  according  to  tradition,  on  the  Ostian  way, 
at  the  spot  now  occupied  by  the  Abbey  of  the  Three  Fountains. 
The  fountains,  which  are  said  to  have  sprung  tip  at  the  spots  where 
Paul's  head  struck  the  ground  three  times  after  the  decapitation,  are 
still  shown,  as  also  the  pillar  to  which  he  is  supposed  to  have  been 
bound!  In  the  fourth  century,  at  the  same  time  that  Peter's  remains 
were  transferred  to  the  Vatican,  Paul's  remains  are  said  to  have  been 
buried  in  the  Basilica  of  St.  Paul,  which  occupied  the  site  now  marked 
by  the  church  of  San  Paolo  fuori  le  nuira.  There  is  nothing  im- 
probable in  the  traditions  as  to  the  spot  where  Paul  and  Peter  met 
their  death.  They  are  as  old  as  the  second  century ;  and  while  they 
cannot  be  accepted  as  indisputably  true  (since  there  is  always  a.  ten- 
dency to  fix  the  deathplace  of  a  great  man  even  if  it  is  not  known), 
yet  on  the  other  hand  if  Peter  'and  Paul  were  martyred  in  Rome, 
it  is  hardly  possible  that  the  place  of  their  death  and  burial  could 
have  been  forgotten  by  the  Roman  church  itself  within  a  century 
and  a  half. 

i7  Neither  Paul  nor  Peter  founded  the  Roman  church  in  the 
strict  sense,  for  there  was  a  congregation  of  believers  there  even 
before  Paul  came  to  Rome,  as  his  Kpistle  to  the  Romans  shows, 
and  Peter  cannot  have  reached  there  until  some  time  after  Paul. 
It  was,  however,  a  very  early  fiction  that  Paul  and  Peter  together 
founded  the  church  in  that  city. 

JOSKPIIUS  again,  after  rela.ting  many  things  1 
in  connection  with  the  calamity  which  came 
upon  the  whole  Jewish  nation,  records,1  in  addi- 
tion to  many  other,  that  a  great 
many-  of  the  most  honorable  among  the  Jews 
were  scourged  in  Jerusalem  itself  and  then 
crucified  by  Florus.'"  It  happened  that  he 
was  procurator  of  Judea  when  the  war  began 
to  be  kindled,  in  the  twelfth  year  of  Nero.4 

nartyrdom  at  Rome,  he  is  almost  certainly  in  error  in  speaking  as 
he  does  of  Peter's  work  in  Corinth.  It  is  difficult,  to  be  sure,  to  dis- 
pose of  so  direct  and  early  a  tradition,  but  it  is  still  more  difficult  to 
accept  it.  The  statement  that  1'anl  and  Peter  together  planted  the 
Corinthian  church  is  certainly  an  error,  as  we  know  that  it  was 
Paul's  own  church,  founded  by  him  alone.  The  so-called  Cephas 
party,  mentioned  in  i  Cor.  i.,  is  perhaps  easiest  explained  by  the 
previous  presence  and  activity  of  Peter  in  Corinth,  but  this  is  by  no 
means  necessary,  and  the  absence  of  any  reference  to  the  fact  in  the 
two  epistles  of  Paul  renders  it  almost  absolutely  impossible,  It  is 
barely  possible,  though  by  no  means  probable,  that  Peter  visited 
Corinth  on  his  way  to  Rome  (assuming  the  Roman  journey)  and 
that  thus,  although  the  church  had  already  been  founded  many 
years,  he  became  connected  in  tradition  with  its  early  days,  and 
finally  with  its  origination.  But  it  is  more  probable  that  the  tradi- 
tion is  wholly  in  error  and  arose,  as  Neander  suggests,  partly  from 
the  mention  of  Peter  in  I  Cor.  i.,  partly  from  the  natural  desire  to 
ascribe  the  origin  of  this  great  apostolic  church  to  the  two  leading 
apostles,  to  whom  in  like  manner  the  founding  of  the  Roman  church 
was  ascribed.  It  is  significant  that  this  tradition  is  recorded  only 
by  a  Corinthian,  who  of  course  had  every  inducement  to  accept 
such  a  report,  and  to  repeat  it  in  comparing  his  own  church  with 
the  central  church  of  Christendom.  We  find  no  mention  of  the 
tradition  in  later  writers,  so  far  as  I  am  aware. 

21  Kara  Tor  avTor  Knipi'if.  The  Kara  allows  some  margin  m 
time  and  does  not  necessarily  imply  the  same  day.  Dionysius  is 
the  first  one  to  connect  the  deaths  of  Peter  and  Paul  chronologically, 
but  later  it  became  quite  the  custom.  One  tradition  put  their  deaths 
on  the  same  day,  one  year  apart  (Augustine  and  Prudentius,  e.g.,  are 
said  to  support  this  tradition).  Jerome  (<fr  vir.  ill.  i)  is  the  first 
to  state  explicitly  that  they  suffered  on  the  same  day.  Eusebius  in 
his  Chron.  (Armen.)  puts  their  martyrdom  in  67,  Jerome  in  68. 
The  Roman  Catholic  Church  celebrates  the  death  of  Peter  on  the 
2gth  and  that  of  Paul  on  the  soth  of  June,  but  has  no  fixed  tradition 
as  to  the  year  of  the  death  of  either  of  them. 

1  Josephns,  B.  y.  II.  14.  9-     He  relates  that  Florus,  in  order  to 
shield  himself  from  the  consequences  of  his  misrule  and  of  his  abomi- 
nable extortions,  endeavored  to   inflame  the  Jews  to  rebel  against 
Rome  by  acting  still  more  cruelly  toward  them.     As  a  result  many 
disturbances  broke  out,  and  many  bitter  things  were  said  against 
Florus,  in  consequence  of  which  he  proceeded  to  the  severe  measures 
referred  to  here  by  Eusebius. 

2  lj.\',r.w;   oo-ot",-.     Josephus  gives   the   whole  number  of  those 
that    were    destroyed,    including    women    and    children,    as   about 
thirty-six  hundred  (no  doubt  a  gross  exaggeration,  like  most  of  his 
figures).     He  does  not  state  the  number  of  noble  Jews  whom  Florus 
whipped  and  crucified.     The  "  myriads  "  of  Eusebius  is  an  instance 
of  the  exaggerated  use  of  language  which  was  common  to  his  age, 
and  which  almost  invariably  marks  a  period  of  decline.     In  many 
cases  "  myriads  "  meant  to  Eusebius  and  his  contemporaries  twenty, 
or  thirty,  or  even  less.     Any  number  that  seemed  large  under  the 
circumstances  was  called  a  "  myriad." 

;:  Gessius  Florus  was  a  Greek  whose  wife,  Cleopatra,  was  a  friend 
of  the  Empress  Poppa;a,  through  whose  influence  he  obtained  his 
appointment  (Jos.  Ant.  XX.  11.  i).  He  succeeded  Albinus  in  64 
\.D.  (see  above,  chap.  23,  note  35),  and  was  universally  hated  as 
the  most  corrupt  and  unprincipled  governor  Judea  had  ever  endured. 
Josephus  (/i.  J.  II.  14.  2  sqq.  and  Ant.  XX.  n.  i)  paints  him  in 
very  black  colors. 

4  Josephus  (11.  J.  II.  14.  4)  puts  the  beginning  of  the  war  in  the 
twelfth  year  of  the  reign  of  Nero  (i.e.  A.n.  66)  in  the  month  of 
Artemision,  corresponding  to  the  month  lyar,  the  second  month  of 

II.  26.] 


2  Josephus  says'  that  at  that  time  a  terrible 
commotion  was  stirred  up  throughout  all 
Syria  in  consequence  of  the  revolt  of  the  Jews, 
and  that  everywhere  the  latter  were  destroycc 
without  mercy,  like  enemies,  by  the  inhabitants 
of  the  cities/"  so  that  one  could  see  cities  filled 

with  unburied  corpses,  and  the  dead  bo< 
the  aged  scattered  about  with  the  bodies 
fants,   and  women  without  even  a  covu 
their  nakedness,  and  the  whole  provinc-. 
indescribable  calamities,  while  the  dre:;d  •: 
things  that  were  threatened  was  greater  ti 
sufferings  themselves  which  they  anywh( 
dured."  °     Such  is  the  account  of  Josephu 
such   was    the    condition    of    the    Jew.; 

lies  of 
of  in- 
ng  lor 
lull  of 
i"  those 
i  11  the 
•re  cn- 
s  ;  and 
H  that 


K   2 



The   Parts 

S!  en  was  the  condition  of  the  Jews. 
\Fcan\vhile  the  holy  apostles  and  disciples 
of  our  Saviour  \vero  dispersed  throughout  the 
world.'  Part  hia,2  according  to  tradition,  was 
allotted  to  Thomas  as  his  field  of  labor,  Scythia" 
to  Andrew,1  and  Asia"  to  I  ihn,"  tt'ho,  after  he 

;  According  tn  Lipsius,  the  legends  concerning  the  labors  of 
the  apostles  in  various  countries  v.<  re  all  originally  connected  with 
that  of  iheir  separation  at  Jeru-.dem,  which  is  as  old  ns  the  second 
century.  Hut  this  separati  >n  was  put  at  \arious  dates  by  different 
traditions,  varying  from  iinmedi  ucly  after  the  Ascension  to  tv.enty- 
four  years  later.  A  lost  book,  referred  to  by  the  /V.  retn»i  Ci'lasfi 
as  /./•',  •>•  /:<ia/>/>c!!atit$s,->-.'<-.<  .  '  /  st  .'  rum  afocryp!nis,\e.v^j  likely 
contained  the  original  tradition,  and  an  account  of  the  fate  of  the  apos- 
tles, and  was  probably  of  (  Inostic  or  Manichean  origin.  'I'lie  efforts 
to  derive  from  the  varying  traditions  any  trustworthy  particulars  as 
to  the  apostles  themselves  is  almost  wholly  vain.  The  various  tradi- 
tions not  only  assign  different  fields  of  labor  to  the  different  apostles, 
but  also  give  different  lists  of  the  apostles  themselves.  See  Lipsius" 

]-\tthi-rs,  Vol.  VIII.  p.  ;;f>i  sqq.  Lipsius  states  that,  according  to 
th"  old  M  form  of  the  traditi  >n,  the  apostles  were  divided  into  three 
groups:  first,  Peter  and  Andrew,  Matthew  and  Bartholomew,  who 
were  said  to  have  preached  in  the  region  of  the  Black  Sea:  second, 
'••••  .  and  Simeon,  the  Canaanite,  in  Parthia;  third, 
John  and  1'ln.ip,  in  Asia  Minor. 

-  I'arthia.  in  the  time  of  the  apostles,  was  an  independent  king- 
dom, e\tending  from  the  Indus  to  the  Tigris,  and  from  the  Caspian 
Sea  to  t'if>  Persian  Gulf.  This  is  the  oldest  form  of  the  tradition  in 
regard  to  Thomas  (see  preceding  note).  Tt  is  found  also  in  the 
Cleaieniiae  Recognitions,  IX.  29,  and  in  Socrates,  //.  I-'..  I.  19. 
Rufmns  //.  A'.  II.  5)  and  Socrates  (//.  /•,'.  IV.  18)  sj.c.ik  of  Kdessa 
as  his  burial  pla  e.  later  tradition.-  extended  his  labors  eastward 
as  far  as  I  ndia,  and  made  h  im  suffer  martyrdom  in  that  land;  and 
there  his  remains  were  exhibited  i!  >\vn  to  the  sixteenth  century. 
A.  irding  to  the  Martyri:im  R<>:n,i:  •<;//,  however,  his  remains 
were  brought  from  India  to  Edessa,  and  from  thence  to  Ortona,  in 


yond  the-  ei 

:;  The  name   S,  ythia 

but"  1 

ian   Christians  in   India  called 
e  cannot  be  traced  be- 

y,  and  is  derived,  probably,  from  a  Xestorian 

only  used  by  the  ancients,  in  a 

very  1  <  ise  sense,  to  denote  all  the  region  lying  north  of  the  Cas- 
pian and  1'dack  Seas.  P.ut  two  Srvthias  were  distinguished  in  more 
accurate  usage:  a  European  Scythi.i,  lying  north  of  the  I'.lack  Sea, 
between  the  1  lanube  and  the  Tanai  .,  and  an  Asiatic  Scythia,  extend- 
ing eastward  from  the  Ural.  Th,:  former  is  here  meant. 

4  The  traditions  respecting  Andrew  are  very  uncertain  and  con- 
tradictory, though,  as  remarked  abo\c  (note  i),  the  original  form, 
represeute  1  here,  assigned  as  Ids  field  the  region  in  the  neighborhood 
of  the  P.lack  Sea.  His  traditional  activity  in  Scythia  has  made  him 
the  patron  saint  of  Russia.  He  is  also  called  the  patron  saint  of 
Greece,  where  he  is  reported  to  have  been  crucified;  but  his  activity 
there  rests  upon  a  late  tradition.  His  body  is  said  to  have  been  car- 
ried to  C  mstantinople  in  ,57  (cf.  Philostorgius,  Hist.  I-.ccles.  III. 
2),  and  during  the  transferred  to  Amalp.-e  in  Italy,  in 
whose  cathedral  the  remains  are  still  shown.  Andrew  is  in  addition 
the  patron  -aint  of  Scotland;  but  the  tradition  of  his  activity  there 
dates  back  only  to  the  eighth  omtury  (cf.  Skeue's  Celtic  Scot- 
land, II.  221  sq.).  Numerous  other  regions  are  claimed,  by  various 
traditi  ins,  to  have  been  the  scene  of  his  labors. 

•'   Proconsular  Asia  included  only  a  narrow  strip  of  Asia  M 

yng  upo 
I.ydia,  an 


had  lived  some  time  there,7  died  at  Ephe- 
sus.      Peter  appears  to  have  preached"  in       2 
Pontus,  Galatia,  Jiithynia,  Cappadocia,  and 
Asia9  to  the  Jews  of  the  dispersion.     And  at 
last,   having   come  to  Rome,   he   was   crucified 
head-downwards  ; I0  for  he  had  requested  that  he 
might  suffer  in  this  way.     What  do  we  need  to 
say  concerning   Paul,  who  preached  the  Cospel 
of   Christ    from    Jerusalem    to    Illyricum,11   and 
afterwards   suffered   martyrdom   in   Rome  under 

d  Caria. 

"  The  universal  testimony  of  antiquity  assigns  John's  later  life 
to  Kphesus:  e.g.  Ireiueus,  Aih'.  H,p>-.  Ill.'i.  :  and  3.  4,  etc.; 
Clement  of  Alex.,  (W.f  /Vrv.v  Sak'ctnr,  c.  42  (quoted  by  Eusebius, 
chap.  23,  below);  Polycrates  in  his  Kpistle  to  Victor  (quoted  by 
Eusebius  in  chap.  31,  below,  and  in  P,k.  V.  (.hap.  24) ;  and  many 
others.  The  testimony  of  IretKeus  is  especially  weighty,  for  the 
series:  Irenaeus,  the  pupil  of  J'olycarp,  the  pupil  of  John,  forms  a 
complete  chain  such  as  we  have  in  no  other  case.  Such  testimony, 
when  its  force  is  broken  by  no  adverse  tradition,  ought  to  be  suffi- 
cient to  establish  John's  residence  in  Ephesus  beyond  the  shadow  of 
a  doubt,  but  it  has  been  denied  by  many  of  the  critics  who  rejei  t 
the  Johannine  authorship  of  the  fourth  Gospel  (e.g.  Keim,  Ilolt/- 
inanu,  the  author  of  S nfcrintt.  Religion,  and  others),  though  the 
denial  is  much  less  positive  now  it  was  a  few  years  ago.  The 
chief  arguments  urged  against  the  residence  of  John  in  Ephesus  are 
two,  both  a  silcntio  :  first,  Clement  in  his  first  Kpistle  to  the  Cor- 
inthians speaks  of  the  apostles  in  such  a  way  as  to  seem  to  imply 
that  they  were  all  dead;  secondly,  in  the  Ignatian  Epistles,  Paul  is 
mentioned,  but  not  John,  which  is  certainly  very  remarkable,  as 
one  is  addressed  to  Ephesus  itself.  In  reply  it  may  be  said  that  such 
an  interpretation  of  Clement's  words  is  not"  necessary,  and  that  the 
omission  of  John  in  the  epistles  of  Ignatius  becomes  perfectly  nat- 
ural if  the  Epistles  are  thrown  into  the  time  of  Hadrian  or  into  the 
latter  part  of  Trajan's  reign,  as  they  ought  to  be  (cf.  chap.  36,  note  4). 
lu  the  face  of_the  strong  testimony  for  John's  Ephesian  residence 
ihese  two  objections  must  be  overruled.  The  traditional  view  is 
defended  by  all  conservative  critics  as  well  as  by  the  majority  even 
of  those  who  deny  the  Johannine  authorship  of  the  fourth  ( lospel  (cf. 
especially  Hilgenfeld  in  his  Kin!,-itu>i^,  and  Wci/.-ai  ker  in  his  Zeitaltcr}.  The  silence  of  Paul's  epistles  and  of  the 
Acts  proves  that  John  cannot  have  gone  to  Kphesus  until  after  Paul 
had  permanently  left  there,  and  this  we  should  naturally  expect  to 
be  the  case.  Upon  the  time  of  John's  banishment  to  Patmos,  see 
Hk.  III.  chap.  18,  note  i.  Tradition  reports  that  he  lived  until  the 
reign  of  Trajan  (98-117).  Cf.  Iremeus,  II.  22.  5  and  III.  3.  4. 

•  Origen   in  this  extract  seems  to  be  uncertain  how  long   John 
remained  in  Ephesus  and  when  he  died. 

*  The  language  of  Origen  (K<  K,j,>v\e i'<u  COIKCI-,  instead  of  Aoyo? 
t.Y'i  or  jrapacWis  Trtpuy.t)  seems  to  imply  that  he  is  recording  not 
a  tradition,  but  a  conclusion  drawn  from  the  first  Epistle  of  Peter, 
which  was  known  to  him,  and  in  which  these  places  are  mentioned. 
Such  a  tradition  did,  however,  exist  quite  early.     Cf.  e.g.  the  Syriac 
li<>ctrina    Apostolorid'i     (ed.    Cureton)   and   the  Gnostic  Acts   of 
Peter  and  Andrew.     The  former  assigns  to  Peter,  Antioch,  Syria, 
and  Cilicia,  in  addition  to  Galatia  and  Pontus,  and  cannot,  therefore, 
rest  solely  upon  the  first  Epistle  of  Peter,  which   does   not  mention 
the  first  three  places.     All  the  places  assigned  to  Peter  are  portions 
of  the  field  of  Paul,  who  in  all  the  traditions  of  this  class  is  com- 
pletely crowded  out  and  his  field  given  to  other  apostles,  showing 
the  Jewish  origin  of  the  traditions.     Upon  Peter's  activity  in   Rome 
and  his  death  there,  see  l!k.  II.  chap.  25,  note  7. 

'•'  Five  provinces  of  Asia  Minor,  mentioned  in  i  Pet.  i.  i. 

'"  Origen  is  the  first  to  record  that  Peter  was  crucified  with  his 
head  downward,  but  the  tradition  afterward  became  quite  common. 
It  is  of  course  not  impossible,  but  the  absence  of  any  reference  to 
it  by  earlier  Fathers  (even  by  Tertullian,  who  mentions  the  cruci- 
fixion), and  its  decidedly  legendary  char.n  ter,  render  it  exceedingly 

11   Cf.    Rom.    xv.    19.       Illyricni 
along  the  eastern  coast  of  the  Adri, 

a  Roman    province    lying 

HI.  3-] 



Nero?1-     These   facts  are  related  by  Origen  in 
the  third  volume  of  his  Commentary  on  Genesis.13 


The  First  Ruler  of  tlie    Church   of  Rome. 

AFTER  the  martyrdom  of  Paul  and  of  Peter, 
I, inns'  was  the  first  to  obtain  the  episcopate  of 
the  church  at  Rome.  Paul  mentions  him,  when 
writing  to  Timothy  from  Rome,  in  the  salutation 
at  the  end  of  the  epistle.2 


The  Epistles  of  the  Apostles. 

\  (  )NF.  epistle  of  Peter,  that  called  the  first, 

is  acknowledged  as  genuine.1     And  this  the 

'-  Sec  above,  P>k.  II.  chap.  25,  note  5. 

1:1  This  fragment  of  Origen  has  been  preserved  by  no  one  else. 
It  is  impossible  to  tell  where  the  quotation  begins  —  whether  with 
the  words  "  Thomas  according  to  tradition  received  Parthia,"  as  I 
have  given  it,  or  with  the  words  "  Peter  appears  to  have  preached," 
etc.,  as  Rright  gives  it. 

1  The  actual  order  of  the  first  three  so-called  bishops  of  Rome  is 
a  greatly  disputed  matter.  The  oldest  tradition  is  that  given  by 
Irenanis  (.  /</?'.  liter.  1 1 1.  3.  3)  and  followed  here  by  Eusebius,  ac- 
cording to  which  the  order  was  Linns,  Anencletus,  Clement.  Hip- 
polytus  gives  a  different  order,  in  which  he  is  followed  by  many 
Fathers;  and  in  addition  to  these  two  chief  arrangements  all  possi- 
ble combinations  of  the  three  names,  and  all  sorts  of  theories  to  ac- 
count for  the  difficulties  and  to  reconcile  the  discrepancies  in  the 
earlier  lists,  have  been  proposed.  In  the  second  chapter  of  the  so- 
called  Epistle  of  Clement  to  James  (a  part  of  the  Pseudo-Clemen- 
tine Literature  prefixed  to  the  Homilies)  it  is  said  that  Clement  was 
ordained  by  Peter,  and  Salmon  thinks  that  this  caused  Hippolytus 
to  change  the  order,  putting  Clement  first.  Gieseler  (Kcdes.  Hist.,  Trans.,  I.  p.  107,  note  10)  explains  the  disagreements  in  the 

•  i  • .  •          i  •        .  i     .   .  i      .  i     .  _  i    _. 

plete  list  of  bishops,  they  were  each  successively  elevated  by  tradi- 
tion to  the  episcopal  chair.  It  is  at  least  certain  that  Rome  at  that 
early  date  had  no  monarchical  bishop,  and  therefore  the  ques- 
tion as  to  the  order  of  these  first  three  so-called  bishops  is  not  a 
question  as  to  a  fact,  but  simply  as  to  which  is  the  oldest  of  variou 
unfounded  traditions.  The  Roman  Church  gives  the  following 
order:  Linus,  Clement,  Cletus,  Anacletus,  following  Hippolytus  in 
making  Cletus  and  Anacletus  out  of  the  single  Anencletus  of  the 
original  tradition.  The  apocryphal  martyrdoms  of  Peter  and  Paul 
are  falsely  ascribed  to  Linus  (see  Tischendorf,  Ada  Apost.  Apocr 
p.  xix.  sq.).  Eusebius  (chap.  13,  below)  says  that  Linus  wa 
bishop  for  twelve  years.  In  his  Chron.  (Armen.)  he  says  fourteci 
years,  while  Jerome  says  eleven.  These  dates  are  about  as  reliable 
as  the  episcopal  succession  itself.  We  have  no  trustworthy  infor- 
mation as  to  the  personal  character  and  history  of  Linns.  Upon  the 
subjects  discussed  in  this  note  see  especially  Salmon's  articles,  Clem- 
ens Roman  us,  and  Linus,  in  the  Diet,  of  Christ.  Riog. 

~  2  Tim.  iv.  21.     The  same  identification  is  made  by  Ireiueus, 
Ath>.  liter.  III.  3.  3,  and  by  Pseudo-Ignatius  in  the  Epistle  to  tit 
Trallians  (longer  version),  chap.  7. 

1  The  testimony  of  tradition  is  unanimous  for  the  authenticity  ol 
the  first  EpUtle  of  Peter.  It  was  known  to  Clement  of  Rome,  Poly- 
carp,  Papias,  Hernias,  &c.  (the  Muratorian  Fragment,  however, 
omits  it),  and  was  cited  under  the  name  of  Peter  by  Ireiuens,  Ter- 
tullian,  and  Clement  of  Alexandria,  from  whose  time  its  canonicity 
and  Petrine  authorship  were  established,  so  that  Eusebius  rightly 
puts  it  among  the  homologoumena.  Sender,  in  1784,  was  the  first 
to  deny  its  direct  Petrine  authorship,  and  Cludius,  in  1808,  pro- 
nounced it  absolutely  ungenuine.  The  Tubingen  School  followed 
and  at  the  present  time  the  genuineness  is  denied  by  all  the  negative 
critics,  chiefly  on  account  of  the  strong  Pauline  character  of  the 
epistle  (cf.  Holtzmann,  Einleitung,  p.  487  sqq.,  also  Weiss,  Ein 
leitimg,  p.  428  sqq.,  who  confines  the  resemblances  to  the  Epistle: 
to  the  Romans  and  to  the  Ephesians,  and  denies  the  general  Pauline 
character  of  the  epistle).  The  great  majority  of  scholars,  however 
maintain  the  Petrine  authorship.  A  new  opinion,  expressed  by 
Harnack,  upon  the  assumption  of  the  distinctively  Pauline  charac 
ter  of  the  epistle,  is  that  it  was  written  during  the  apostolic  age  by 
some  follower  of  Paul,  and  that  the  name  of  Peter  was  afterward  at 
tached  to  it,  so  that  it  represents  no  fraud  on  the  part  of  the  writer 

indent  elders1'  used  freely  in  their  own  writings 
is  an  undisputed  work.1''      But  we  have  learned 
that    his    extant    second    Epistle    does    not    bc- 
ong   to   the   canon  ;  *    yet,  as  it  has    appeared 
profitable  to   many,  it  has  been  used  with 
the  other  Scriptures/'     The  so-called  Acts        2 
)f  Peter,0  however,  and  the  (iospel7  which 
)ears   his   name,   and    the    Preaching*  and   the 

ut  an  effort  of  a  later  age  to  find  a>i  author  for  the  anonymous  epis- 
le.  In  support  of  this  is  urged  the  fact  that  though  the  epistle  is 
so  frequently  ([noted  in  the  second  century,  it  is  never  connected 
with  Peter's  name  until  the  time  of  Jrrmuus.  (Cf.  Harnack's  I.elire 
let-  y.wi>lf  Apostel,_  p.  106,  note,  and  his  Dogmengeschichte,  I. 
x  278,  note  2.)  This  theory  has  found  few  supporters. 

-  oi  n-aAai  Trpeo-pvTepoi.     <  )n  the  use  of  the  term  "  elders  "  among 
the  Fathers,  see  below,  chap.  39,  note  6. 
w?  (IriMic/.iAoKTO). 

OVK  iv^ia.Qi\nov  /AII'  ttVru  rrapeiA>j</)a/iei'.  The  authorship  of 
the  second  Epistle  of  Peter  has  always  been  widely  disputed.  The 
external  testimony  for  it  is  very  weak,  as  no  knowledge  of  it  can  be 
roved  to  have  existed  before  the  third  century.  Numerous  expla- 
nations have  been  offered  by  apologists  to  account  for  this  curious 
Fact;  but  it  still  remains  almost  inexplicable,  if  the  epistle  be  ac- 
:epted  as  the  work  of  the  apostle.  The  first  clear  references  to  it 

by  Origen  (quoted  by  Eusebius,  VI.  25,  below),  who  mentions  the 
second  Epistle  as  disputed.  Clement  of  Alexandria,  however,  seems 
at  least  to  have  known  and  used  it  (according  to  F.useb.  VI.  14). 
The  epistle  was  not  admitted  into  the  Canon  until  the  Council  of 
Hippo,  in  393,  when  all  doubts  and  discussion  ceased  until  the 
Reformation.  It  is  at  present  disputed  by  all  negative  critics,  and 
even  by  many  otherwise  conservative  scholars.  Those  who  de- 
fend its  genuineness  date  it  shortly  before  the  death  of  Peter,  while  the 
majority  of  tho.-,c  who  reject  it  throw  it  into  the  second  century,— 
some  as  lat^  as  the  time  of  Clement  of  Alexandria  (e.g.  Harnack,  in 
his  I.ehre  der  /.wolf  Afostel,  p.  15  and  159,  who  assigns  its  com- 
position to  Egypt).  Cf.  Holtzmann,  Einleitung,  p.  495^1.,  and  (who  leaves  its  genuineness  an  open  question),  Einleitung, 
p.  456  sqq.  For  a  defense  of  the  genuineness,  see  especially  War- 
iield",  in  the  Southern  J'res.  Re?.,  1883,  p.  390  sqq.,  and  Salmon's 
Introdiiition  to  t,'ie  JV.  7'.,  p.  512  sqq. 

•n  Although  disputed  by  many,  as  already  remarked,  and  conse- 
quently not  looked  upon  as  certainly  canonical  until  the  end  of  the 
fourth  century,  the  epistle  was  yet  used,  as  Eusebius  says,  quite 
lely  from  the  time  of  Origen  on,  e.g.  by  Origen,  Firmilian,  Cy- 
prian, Hippolytus,  Methodius,  etc.  The  same  is  true,  however,  of 
oilier  writings,  which  the  Church  afterward  placed  among  the  Apoc- 

(;  These  Trp.^n?  (or  n-cpi'ofioi,  as  they  are  often  called)  Ilerpou 
were  of  heretical  origin,  according  to  Lipsius,  and  belonged,  like  the 
heretical  A  eta  Pauli  (referred  to  in  note  20,  below),  to  the  collec- 
tion ff  -«.,):  11  Tiif  uTuar.iA'ur,  which  were  ascribed  to  Lucius 
Cliariiius,  and,  like  them,  formed  also,  from  the  end  of  the  fourth 
century,  a  part  of  the  Manichean  Canon  of  the  New  Testament. 
The  work,  as  a  whole,  is  no  longer  extant,  but  a  part  of  it  is  pre- 
served, according  to  Lipsius,  in  a  late  Catholic  redaction,  under  the 
title  reissio  I'etri.  Upon  these  Acts  of  l'ete>-,  their  original  form, 
a;id  their  relation  to  other  works  of 'the  same  class,  see  Lipsius, 
Apoci-yphcn  Apostclgeschichtcn,  II.  i,  p.  78  sq.  Like  the  heretical 
Ac  til  1'iinli  already  referred  to,  this  work,  too,  was  used  in  the 
composition  of  the  Catholic  Acts  of  Paul  and  Peter,  which  are  still 
extant,  and  which  assumed  their  present  form  in  the  fifth  century, 
according  to  Lipsius.  These  Catholic  Acts  of  Peter  and  Paul 
have  been  published  by  Thilo  (Ada  Petri  et  Panli,  Halle,  1837), 
and  by  Tischendorf,  in  his  Acta  Apost.  Apocr.,  p.  1-39.  English 
translation  in  the  Ante-Niceuc  Fathers  (Am.  ed.),  VIII.  p.  477. 

7  This  Gospel  is  mentioned  by  Serapion  as  in  use  in  the  church 
of  Rhossus  (quoted  by  Eusebius,  I5k.  VI.  chap.  12,  below), but  was 
rejected  by  him  because  of  the  heretical  doctrines  which  it  contained. 
It  is  mentioned  again  by  Eusebius,  III.  25,  only  to  be  rejected  as 
heretical;  also  by  Origen  (/;/  Matt.  Vol.  X.  17)  and  by  Jerome  (de 
r'/>.  ///.  i),  who  follows  Eusebius  in  pronouncing  it  an  heretical 
work  employed  by  no  early  teachers  of  the  Christian  Church.  Lip- 
sius regards  it  as  probably  a  Gnostic  recast  of  one  of  the  Canonical 
Gospels.  From  Serapion's  account  of  this  Gospel  (see  below,  lik. 
VI.  chap.  12),  we  see  that  it  differs  from  the  Canonical  Gospels,  not 
in  denying  their  truth,  or  in  giving  a  contradictory  account  of 
Christ's  life,  but  rather  in  adding  to  the  account  given  by  them. 
This,  of  course,  favors  Lipsius' hypothesis;  and  in  any  case  he  is 
certainly  quite  right  in  denying  that  the  Gospel  was  an  original  work 
made  use  of  by  Justin  Martyr,  and  that  it  in  any  way  lay  at  the  base 
of  our  present  Gospel  of  Mark.  The  Gospel  (as  we  learn  from  the 
same  chapter)  was  used  by  the  Docctie,  but  that  does  not  imply  that 
it  contained  what  we  call  Docetic  ideas  of  Christ's  body  (cf.  note 
on  that  chapter).  The  Gospel  is  no  longer  extant.  See  Lipsius,  in 
Smith  and  Wace's  Diet,  of  Christ.  Biog.  II.  p.  712-  ,.  ..  ., 

»  This  Preaching  of  Peter  (Krjpvy/ota  Iltrpor,  Prttdicatio  I  <•- 
tri),  which  is  no  longer  extant,  probably  formed  a  part  ol  a  Ic 




Apocalypse,'1  as  they  are   called,  we  know  have 
not   been  uniycTsally  accepted,1'1  because  no  ec- 
clesiastical  writer,  ancient  or  modern,  has  made 
use    of    testimonies     drawn     from     them." 
3        lUit  in  the    course    of   my  history  I    shall 
be    careful    to    show,    in    addition    to    the 
official    succession,    what    ecclesiastical    writers 
have  from  time  to  time  made  use  of  any  of  the 
disputed    works,1-   and   what  they  haye   said    in 
regard  to  the  canonical  and  accepted  writings,1" 
as  well  as  in  regard  to  those  which  are  not 
4        of  this    class.      Such   are   the  writings   that 
bear  the  name  of  Peter,  only  one  of  which 
I    know  to  be   genuine  "  and  acknowledged  by 
the  ancient   elders.1' 
5            Paul's   fourteen   epistles  are  well  known 

and    undisputed."''      It.    is    not    indeed    right   to 
overlook    the    fact   that  some  have  rejected  the 
Kpistle  to  the    Hebrews,17   saying  that  it  is  dis- 

=  •    The  thirteen   P.uiline   F'.pistles  of  our  present  Canon,  and  the 
ICpistle  to  the    Hebrews.      These  formed  for   Knsebiits  an   absolutely 
undisputed  part  of  the  Canon    (cf.  chap.  2-,  below,  where  lie   speaks 
of  them   with   (lie  same  complete  a.ssuiance),  and  were  universally 
accepted  until  the  present  century.     The  external   testimony  for  all 
of  them   i.,   ample,   going  back    (the   Pastoral   F'.pistles  excepted)    to 
t  le  early  part  of  the  second  century.     The  F'.pistles  to  the  Romans, 
Corinthians,   and   Galatians    have    never  been    disputed    (except   by 
an    individual    lieie   and    there,   especially  during   the  last  few  years 
in  II  ill.  mil),  even  the  Tiibingen   >chool   accepting  them  as  genuine 
works    of   I'aul.      The    other   epistle:,    have   not   fared   so   well.      The 
genuineness  of  Kphesiaiis  was  first  questioned  by  Ustcri  in  1824  and 
l>e  Wette   iii   rS2'>,   and   the    Tiibingen    School   rejected   it.     Schol- 
ar  are  at  pre-cnt  greatly   divided;    the   majority  of  negative   critics 
rcjec  t  it,  while  many  liberal   and  all  conservative  scholars  defend  it. 
,  ms  was  first  attacked  by  Mayerhoff  in   1838,  followed  by  the 
whole    Tubingen    School.      It    fares    to-day    somewhat     letter    than 
F.phcs!  ins.      It   is   still,  however,  rejected   by   many   extreme  critics, 
while  others  leave  the  matter    in    suspense    (e.g.    Wei/slicker   in    his 
'     ';,•„•  Zeitalter).     Since   1872,  when  the   theory  was  pro- 
posed   by    I!  >lt7inan:i,    some   scholars   have  held   that    our   present 
Epistle   contains   a   genuine    Kpistle  of  Paul   to.  the  Colossians,  of 
wlii   h  it  is  a  later  revision  and  c  xpansion.      Baur  and  the  Tubingen 
School  were  the  first  to  attack  Philippians  as  a  wbole,  and  it  too  is 
still   rcicctcd  by  many  critics,  but  at  the  same  time  it  is  more  widely 
ad  i  pti  d  than  either  Kphesians  or  Colossians  (e.g.  Wci/sacker  and 
even    Hilgenfeld    defend    its    genuineness).      Second    Thessalonians 
was   lir..t   attacked   by    Schmidt    in    iSui,   followed   by   a   number  of 
si  h  ilars,  until    liatir  extended   the   attack    to    the   first    F.pistlc   also. 
Second  Thessalonians  is  still  almost  unanimously  rcjec  t.  d  by  negative 

VI    s    and  Lactantius,  lint.  IV    21).      It  was  mentioned  frequently 

by   the  early    Fathers,  and  a  number  of  fragments  of   it  have  been 
preserved  by  Clement  of  Alexandria,  who  ([notes  it  frequently  as  a 
genuine   record  of  Peter's  teaching.      (The  fragments  arc  collected 
by  Grabe  in  bis  Spic,  Pair.  I.  55-71,  and  by  ILlgenfcld  in  his  .V.  T. 
e  i-tra  Can.  rcc.,  ad  ed.,  IV.  p.  si  sqq.).      It  is  mentioned  twice  by 
Orison   (/«   Johan.  Kill.  17,  and    f)e  Princ.  Pnef.  8),  and  in   the 
latter   place   is   expressly   classed   among    spurious  works.      It    was 
probably,  according  to  Lipsius,  clo-ely  connected  with   the  Acts  <•/ 
/',  t,-r  I'tr.ii  Paul  mentioned  in  noie  6,  above.     Lipsins,  however,  re- 
gards those  Acts  as  a  Catholic  adaptation  of  a  work  originally 
onitic,  though  he  says  expre.-sly  that  the  Prcai  king  is  not  at  all  _of 
that  character,  but  is  a   Petro-Pauline  production,  and  is  to  be  dis- 
tinguished from  the  Ebionitic  xvi'y/iaTtt.      It  would  seem  therefore 
that  be  must  put  the  PreacIiing\MKt  than  the  original  of  the  .Ids, 
into  a  time  when  the  Kbionitic  character  of  the  latter  had  lu-en  done 
away  with.     Salmon  meanwhile  holds  that  the  I'rciic'iiiig  i>  as  old 
as  the   middle  of   the   second  century  and  the   most  ancient  of   the 
works   recording    Peter's  preaching,  and   IK  nee  i  if  tins  view  be  ac- 
cepted) the  Kbionitic  character  which   Lipsins  ascribes  to  the  ./,.'. 
did  not  c  if  it  exi-trd  at  all)  belong  to  the  original  form  of  the  re.     rJ 
of  Peter'.-  preaching  embodied   in   the  .-/  cis  and   in    the   Preaching. 
The  latter  (if  it  included   also   the  PreaJii::,:    /'  Pa:il,  as  seems  al- 
most certain)  appears  to  have  contained  an   account  of  some  of  the 
events  of  the  life  of  Christ,  and   it  may  have  been   used  by  Justin. 
Compare   the  remarks  of  Lip.Miis  in  the   Diet,  cf  Chri.-.t.  Biog.  I. 
p.  28  (  Adaptations  cf  I'.bionitic  Acts),  and  Salmon's  article 
on  the  Preaching  ef  Peter,  il'iil.  IV.  329. 
•'  The  Apocalypse  of  Peter  enjoyed  considerable  favor    in    the 
i   hurch    and   was    accepted    by   some    Fathers    as   a   genuine 
woikof  the  apostle.      1  1  is  mentioned  in   the  Muratorian  Fragment 
m  connection  with  the  Apocalypse  of  John,  as  a  part  of  the   Roman 
Canon,  and  is  accepted  by  the  author  of  the  fragment  himself;   al- 
he  says  that  some  at  that  time  rejected  it.    Clement  of  Alcxan- 
.  liia.  in  his  H\pot\-p,  •*<s  (according  to  fclusebius,  IV.  14,  below),  com- 
mented upon'  it,  "thus  showing  that  it  belonged  at  that  time  to  the 
\lexandrian  Can  MI.      It  the  third  century  it  was  still  received  in  the 
\    rth  African  Church  (so  Harnack,  who   refers  to  the  stichometry 
of  the  Codex  Claramonlanus)  .      The  J-'.clo^d'  or  Prophetical  ,SY- 
,  of  Clement  of  Alexandria  give  it  as  a  genuine  work  of  Peter 
(§§  41,  48,  49,  p.  1000  sq.,  Potter's  ed.),  and  so  .Methodius  of  Tyre 
.v.  XL  fj,  p.  16,  ed.  Jahn,  according  to  I,ip.,ius'  .     After  False- 
bins'  time  the  woik  seems  to  have  been  universally  regarded  as  spuri- 
oiis,  and  thus,    is  i:.-  canonicity  depended  n[)on  Us  apostolic  origin 
(sec  cbap.  24,  note  ly),  it  gradually  fell  out  of  the  Canon.      It  never- 
theless held  i                          •••ituries  among  tlie  semi-scriptural  books, 
a;id   was  rea  i   in   many   churches.       According  to   Sozomen,  //.    /•-". 

regained  the  support  of  many  of  the  former   (e.g.  Hilgenfeld,  Weiz- 
sai  ker,  and  even  Holtzmann),  and  is  entirely   rejected  by  compara- 
tively few  critics.      Philemon  —  which  was  first  attacked  by    lianr  — 
is  quite  generally  accepted,  but  the    Pastoral   Kpislles  are   almost  as 
gencr  illy  rejected,  except  by  the  regular  conservative   .school    (upon 
the   Pastorals,  see  P,k.  II.  chap.  22,  note   S,  above;.      For  a  com  i>e 
account  of  the  state  of  criticism  upon  each  epistle,  see  Holt/mann's 
Einleitniig.      For  a  defense  of  them  all,  see  the  Einlcitntigo{\Veiss. 
^  Tins    i',",  Ti)K,L<Ti.     That    the    F.pistle   to  the  Hebrews  was  not 
written  by   Paul   is  now  commonly   acknowledged,  and  may  be  re- 
garded  as   absolutely   certain.      It    does    not    itself  lay   any  claim    to 
''anline  authorship;    its  theology   and  style  are  both  non-Pauline; 
md   finally,  external   testimony   is  strongly   against    its  _  dim  t    con- 
nection with  Paul.      The    first  persons   to  assign   the  epistle   to    Paul 
ire  Paiit;emis  and  Clement  of  Alexandria  (see  below,   P.k.  VI.   chap. 
14),  and  they  evidently  find  it  necessary  to  defend  its   Pauline  au- 
thorship in  the  face  of  the  objections  of  others.     Clement,  indeed, 
assumes  a   Hebrew   original,   which  was    translated   into  Greek  by 
Luke.     Origeii  (see  below,  lik.  VI.  chap.  25)  leaves  its  authorship 
undecided,  but  thinks  it  probable   that   the   thoughts  are  Paul's,  but 
the  diction   that  of  some  one  else,  who  has  recorded  what  he  heard 
from  the  apostle.      He  then  remarks  that  one  tradition  assigned  it  to 
Clement   of   Rome,    another  to    Luke.      F'aisebius  himself,   in    agree- 
ment  with    the   Alexandrians  (who,   with    the    exception    of  Origen, 
nnanimoii-ly  accept  the  Pauline  authorship)  ,  looks  upon  it  as  a  work 
of   Paul,    but   accepts    Clement   of  Alexandria's    theory   that    it   was 
written   in   Hebrew,  and   thinks   it  probable  that  Clement  of  Rome 
was  its  translator   (see  chap.   38,  below).     In   the  Western  Church, 

it  freely',   it   is  not  connected  with   Paul   until  the  fourth  century. 
Indeed,  Tertullian  (,tc  pntiicit.  20)  states  that  it  bore  the  name  of 
Barnabas,  and  evidently  had  never  heard  that  it  had  been  ascribed 
to  any  one  else.      The  influence  of  the  Alexandrians,  however,  finally 
prevailed,  and   from  the  fifth  century   on  we  find   it  universally  ac- 
cepted,  both  F.ast  and  V.'esl,  as  an  epistle  of  Paul,  and  not  until  the 
Reform;'.;  i  .n  was  its  origin   again  questioned.     Since  that  time   its 
authorship   has  been   commonly  regarded  as  an   insoluble  mystery. 
Numerous  guesses  have  been   made    (e.g.   Luther   guessed  Apollos, 
and  he   has  been   followed  by  many),  but    it   is   impossible  to  prove 

es|>ecial  respect.     Ni>  eph'>rus  in  hi.-,  .itic/ioinctry  puts  it  among  the 
Antilegomena,    in    immediate    connection    with    the    Apocalypse    of 
John.      As  Lipsin>',-.s,  its  "  lay-recognition  in  orthodox  circles 
proves  that  it  could  not  have  had  a  Gnostic  origin,  nor  otherwise 
have  contained  what  was  olfciisive  to  Catholic  Christians"  (see  Lip- 
sins,  Diet,  pfCIiri^t.  Hie/;.  I.  p.  ijo  sqq.).     Only  a  few  fragments 
of  the  work  are  extant,  and   these    are  given    by  Hilgenfeld,  in    his 
No-.-.  Test.  c-\tra  Can.  receptiiin,  \\  .  74  sq.,  and  by  Grabe,  Spi.~. 
Pair.  \.  71  sqq. 
>"  uv','  "A(us  er  KafloAiKai?  \ci\tfv  rrapaoiSo/ie'ra. 
"    Kusebius  exaggerates  in   this  statement.      The  Apocalypse  of 
/  'fter  wa-  in  onile   general   use   in   the  second  century,  as  we  learn 
from  the  Muratorian  Fragment;   and  Clement  (as   Flusebins  liimsclf 
says  in  VI.  14)  wrote  a  commentary  upon  it  in  connection  with  the 
other  Antilegomena. 
12  run1  ttrnAt  yo/utcojr. 
13  Tripi  run'  crc5ta#»JKioi'  KOU  biJ.o\>iai>. 
14  (oc  fi.nrrji'  fj-iav  yvT}<?i.a.v  tyi'uiv. 
'•"'  As  above;  see  note  2. 

be  saiil  than  for  any  of  the  others,     lertulhan  expressly  connects 
the  epistle  with  him;    and  its  contents  are  just  what  we  should  ex- 
pect from  the  [ten  of  a  Lcvite  who  had  been  for  a  time  under  Paul's 
influence,  and  yet  had  not  received  his  Christianity  from  him;   its 
standpoint,  in   fact,   is   Levitic,  and  decidedly   non-Pauline,  and  yet 
reveals  in  many  places  the  influence  of  Pauline  ideas.     Still  further, 
it  is  noticeable  that  in  the  place  where  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is 
first  ascribed  to  Paul,  there  first  appears  an  epistle  which  is  ascribed 
(quite  wrongly;   see  below,  chap.  2^,  note  20)  to  Barnabas.     May  it 
not  be  (as  has  been  suggested  by  Weiss  and  others)  that  the  anony- 
mous F.pistle  to  the  Hebrews  was  originally  accepted  in  Alexandria 
as  the  work  of  Barnabas,  but  that  later  it  was  ascribed  to  Paul;   and 
that  the  tradition  that  Barnabas  had  written  an  epistle,  which  must 
still  have  remained  in  the  Church,  led  to  the  ascription  of  another 
anonymous  epistle  to  him?     We  seem  thus  most  easily  to  explain  the 
false  ascription  of  the  one  epistle  to  Paul,  and  the  false  ascription  of  the 
other  to  Barnabas.  It  may  be  said  that  the  claims  of  both  Barnabas  and 
Apollos  have  many  supporters,  while  still  more  attempt  no  decision. 
In   regard  to  the  canonicity  of  the  epistle   there  seems  never  to 

III.  3-] 



puled  IM  by  the  church  of  Rome,  on  the  ground 
that  it  was  not  written  by  Paul.  I  Hit  wh;it  has 
been  said  concerning  this  epistle  by  those  who 
lived  before  our  time  I  shall  quote  in  the  proper 
place.11'  In  regard  to  the  so-called  Acts  of  Paul,-" 
I  have  not  found  them  among  the  undisputed 


6  But  as  the   same  apostle,  in  the   saluta- 

tions at  the  end  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Ro- 
mans," has  made  mention  among  others  of 
Hennas,  to  whom  the  book  called  The  Shep- 
herd"3 is  ascribed,  it  should  be  observed  that 

have  been  any  senous  dispute,  and  it  is  this  fact  doubtless  which 
did  most  to  foslcr  the  belief  in  its  Pauline  authorship  from  the  third 
century  on.  For  the  criterion  of  eanonicity  more  and  more  came  to 
be  looked  upon  as  apostolicity  ,  direct  or  indirect.  The  early  Church 
had  cared  little  for  such  a  criterion.  In  only  one  place  does  Kuselmis 
seem  to  imply  that  doubts  existed  as  to  its  canonicity,  —  ill  l.k.  VI. 
ch  ip  i  ;,  where  he  classes  it  with  the  Hook  of  im,  and  the  Epis- 
tles of  I'Arnabas,  Clement,  and  Jnde,  among  the  tmtilcgomeiia.  Hut 
in  view  of  his  treatment  of  it  elsewhere  it  must  be  concluded  that 
he  is  ihi'iking  in  that  passage  not  at  all  of  its  canonicity,  but  of  its 
I'.iuline  authorship,  which  he  knows  is  disputed  by  some,  and  in 
reference  to  which  he  uses  the  same  w,,rd,/u-7,A  -y^d...,  ,  in  the  pres- 
ent sentence.  Upon  the  canonicity  of  the  epistle,  see  still  further 
i-li  ip.  25.  note  T.  For  a  discussion  of  the  epistle,  see  especially  the 
N  T  Introductions  of  Weiss  and  Holtzmann. 

'•<   urriAeynrtf.u.  1;i  See  Bk.  VI.  chaps.  14,  20,  25. 

-«  These  rr;afciv  are  mentioned  also  in  chap.  25,  below,  where 
they  are  classed  among  the  rtiflcn,  implying  that  they  had  been  orig- 
inally accepted  as  canonical,  but  were  not  at  the  time  Kusebius 
wrote  widely  accepted  as  such.  This  implies  that  they  were  not, 
like  the  works  which  he  mentions  later  in  the  chapter,  of  an  hereti- 
cal character.  They  were  already  known  to  Origen,  who  (/>>'  Prill. 
I.  2  3)  refers  to  them  in  such  a  way  as  to  show  that  they  were  in  good 
repute  in  the  Catholic  Church.  They  are  to  be  distinguished  f 
the  Onostio  jr..p«>,W  or  ,T,>-.£,  tv  II.-'i-'Aor,  which  from  the  end  of  the 
fourth  century  formed  a  part  of  the  Manichean  canon  of  the  Nev 
Testament,  and  of  which  some  fragments  are  still  extant  under  vari- 
ous forms.  The  failure  to  keep  these  Catholic  and  heretical  Act. 
Panli  always  distinct  has  caused  considerable  confusion,  both  ot 
these  \cts,  the  Catholic  and  the  heretical,  formed,  according  to  l.ip- 
sius  (Apokr.  Aposiclgcschichtcn,  II.  T,  p.  305  sq.)  one  of  th 
sources  of  the  Catholic  Acts  of  Peter  and  Paul,  which  in  the 
extant  form  belong  to  the  fifth  century.  For  a  discussion  of  thes 
Catholic  Acts  of  1'  referred  to  by  Lusebius,  see  Lipsius,  ibid.,  p 

70  sip 

21   ouSt  fijji'  ra?  Atyo/J.n'a?  auroO  irpafeis  fV  ai<u/j.'/.iA<KToi?  n-a/jci. 


2*'See   Rom.    xvi.  14-     'I'he  greater   part  of  this  last  chapter   o 
Romans  is  considered  by  many  a  separate  epistle  addressed  to  K; 
esus      This   has  been   quite   a  common  opinion  since  1829,  when  i 
'first  broached  by  David  Schulz  (StuJu-n  und  Kritikcn,  p.  6; 

)      and    is   accepted    even    by    many    conservative    scholars    ( 

sq.)      and    is   accepted    even    by    many    conservative    scholars    (c 
Weiss)    while  on  the  other  hand  it  is  opposed  by  many  of  the  oppo 
site  school.     While  Aquila  and  Priscilla,  of  verse  3,  and  Epajnetus, 
of  verse   5,  seem  to   point   to    Kphesus,   and   the   fact  that  so  many 
personal  friends  are  greeted,  leads  us  to  look  naturally  to  the  Last  as 
Paul's  field  of  labor,  where  he    had  formed  so  many  acquaintances, 
rather  than  to  Rome,  where  he  had  not  been;  yet  on  tin 
such  names  as  Junias,  Narcissus,  Rufns,  Hennas,   Nereus,   Aristo- 
bulus,  and  Herodion  point  strongly  to  Rome.     We  must,  however, 
be  content  to  leave  the  matter  undecided,  but  may  be  confident  that 
the  evidence  for  the  Kphesian  hypothesis  is  certainly,  in   the  face  ol 
the  Roman  names  mentioned,  and  of  universal  tradition  (for  which 
as  for  Kusebius  the  epistle  is  a  unit),  not  strong  enough  to  estab- 

'b  ^il  The  Shepherd  of  Hennas  was  in  circulation  in  the  latter  half 
of  the  second  century,  and  is  quoted  by  Irensuus  (A  dr.  Hter.  IV. 
20.  2)  as  Scripture,  although  he  omits  it  in  his  discussion  of  Scrip- 
ture testimonies  in  l'-k.  III.  chap.  9  sqq.,  which  shows  that  he  con- 
sidered it  not  quite  on  a  level  with  regular  Scripture.  Clement  of 
Alexandria  and  Origen  often  quote  it  as  an  inspired  book,  though 
the  latter  expressly  distinguishes  it  from  the  canonical  books,  admit- 
ting that  it  is  disputed  by  many  (cf.  DC  Prin.  IV.  11).  Eusebms 
in  chap.  2S  places  it  among  the  r.iHoi  or  spurious  writings  in  connec- 
tion with  the  Acts  of  Pa  it  I  and  the  Apocalypse  of  Peter.  According 
to  the  Mnratorian  Fragment  it  was  "  written  very  recently  in  our 
times  in  the  city  of  Rome  by  Hennas,  while  his  brother,  bishop 
I'ius,  sat  in  the  chair  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  And  therefore  it  also 
ought  to  be  read;  but  it  cannot  be  made  public  in  the  Church  to  the 
people,  nor  placed  among  the  prophets,  as  their  number  is  complete, 
nor  among  the  apostles  to  the  end  of  time."  Tins  shows  the  very 
high  esteem  in  which  the  work  was  held  in  that  age.  It  was  very 
widely  employed  in  private  and  in  public,  both  in  the  Kast  and  the 
West,  until  about  the  fourth  century,  when  it  gradually  passed  out 
of  use.  Jerome  (,/,-  i-ir.  ill.  10)  says  that  it  was  almost  unknown 

this  too  has  been  disputed  by  some,  and  on 
their  account  cannot  be  placed  among  the  ac- 
viiowledged  books  ;  while  by  others  it  is  con- 
.idered  quite  indispensable,  especially  to  those 
who  need  instruction  in  the  elements  of  the 
"aith.  Hence,  as  we  know,  it  has  been  publicly- 
read  in  churches,  and  I  have  found  that  some 
of  the  most  ancient  writers  used  it. 

This  will  serve  to  show  the  divine  writ-       7 
ings   that  are   undisputed   as  well  as  those 
hat  are  not  universally  acknowledged. 

tmong  the  Latins  of  his  time.     A.,  to  the  date  and  authorship   of 
the  Shepherd  opinions  vary  widely.     The  only  direct  testimony  of 
mtiqnity    is   that  of  the   Muratorian   Fragment,  which   says  that   it 
was  written  by  Hennas,  the  brother  of  Pius,   during  the  episcopacy 
of   the    latter    (139-154  A.D.).     This    testimony   is  accepted    by  the 
majority  of  scholars,  most  of  whom  date  the  book  near  the  middle 
of  the  second  century,  or  at   least  as  late  as  the  reign  of  Hadrian. 
This  opinion  received  not  long  ago  what  was  supposed  to  be  a  strong 
confirmation  from  the  discovery  of  the  fact  that  Hennas  in  all  proba- 
bility quoted  from  Theodotion's  version  of  Daniel  (see  Hort  s  article 
in  the  Johns  Hopkins  University  Circular,  I  'eccmber,  1884) ,  which 
has  been  commonly  ascribed  to  the  second  century.      But  it  must  now 
be  admitted  that  no  one  knows  the  terminus  a   quo  for  the  compo- 
sition of   Theodotion's  version,  and  therefore    the  discovery  leaves 
the  date  of  Hennas  entirely  undetermined   (see  Schiirer,  Gesc/t.  des 
i'lidischeii    I'olkes,   II.   p.   7011)-     Meanwhile   Eusebius  in   this  con- 
nection records  the  tradition,  which  he  had  read,  that  the  book  was 
•ritten  by  the  Hernias  mentioned  in   Romans  xvi.     This  tradition, 
owevcr    appears  to  be  no  older  than   Origen,  with  whom  it  is  no 
more  than  a  mere  guess.     While  in  our  absence  of  any   knowledge 
•is  to  this  Hennas  we  cannot  absolutely   disprove  his  claim   (unless 
we  prove  decisively  the  late  date  of  the  book),  there  is  yet  no  ground 
for  accepting  it  other  than   a  mere  coincidence   in  a  very  common 
name        In'/V.v.   II.   4.   3   Hennas  is   told   to   give   one  copy  of  his 
b'.ok'to    Clement.      From    this   it   is   concluded   by    many    that    the 
author  must  have  been  contemporary   with  the  well-known   Roman 
Cl-menl,  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the   Corinthians.     While  this 
a- .pears  very  cannot  be  called  certain  in  the  face  of  evidence 
for  a  considerably  later  date.      Inter;, al   testimony   helps  us  little,  as 
there   is  nothing  in  the  book   which   may  not  have  been  written  at 
the  very  beginning  of  the  second  century,  or,  on   the  oilier  hand,  as 
late  as  the   mi. idle  of  it.     Z.ihn   dates   it   between  97   and   100,   and 
assigns  it   to  an  unknown    Hennas,   a  contemporary   of  the    Roman 
Clement,  in   which  he  is  followed  by   Salmon   in   a   very  clear   and 
keen  article  in  the  Di\  /.  of  Christ.  fiiog.     Critics  are  unanimously 
agreed  that   the   book    was   wiiiten   in    Rome.      It  consists  of  three 
parts    Visions     M  UK'  ite-    and   Similitudes,  and  is  of  the  nature  of 
ail  apocalypse,  written  for  the   purpose  of  reforming  the  life  of  the 
Church    winch  seemed  to  the  author  to  have  become   very  corrupt. 
The  work   (esptc;al!y   the  last  par!)    is  in   the  form  of  an  allegory, 
and  has  been' compared  to  the  Pilgrim's  Progress.     Opinions  are 
divided  as  to  whether  it  is  actually  founded  upon  visions  and  dreams 
of  the  author,  or  is  wholly  a  fiction.     The  former  opinion  seems  to 
be  the  more  probable. 

Until  recent  years  only  a  Latin  translation  of  Hennas  was  known. 
In  1856  the  first  Creek  edition  was  issued  by  Anger  and  Dmdorf, 
ng  based  upon  a  Ml.  Athos  MS.  discovered  shortly  before  by 
Simonides.  Of  the  ten  leaves  of  the  MS.  the  last  was  lost;  three 
cere  sold  bv  Simonides  to  the  University  of  Leipsic,  and  the  other 
six-  were  transcribed  by  him  in  a  very  faulty  manner.  The  Smaitic 
Codi-x  has  enabled  us  to  control  the  text  of  Simonides  in  part,  but 
unfortunately  it  contains  only  the  Visions  and  a  small  part  of  the 
Mandates.  'All  recent  editions  have  been  obliged  to  take  the  faulty 
transcription  of  Simonides  as  their  foundation.  In  iSSo  the  six 
leaves  of  the  Athos  Codex,  which  had  been  supposed  to  be  lost,  and 
which  were  known  only  through  Simonides'  transcription,  were- dis- 
co- ered  by  Lambros  at  Ml.  Athos,  and  in  iSSS  A  Collation  of  the 
•\thos  Code*  of  the  Shepherd  of  Hennas  by  Dr.  Spyr  Lambros 
was  issued  in  English  translation' by  J.  A.  Robinson,  at  Cambridge 
F  .gland.  We  thus  have  now  a  reliable  Creek  text  of  mne-tenths  ot 
\\K  Shepherd  of  Hernias.  Hilgenfeld,  in  his  last  edition  (1887)  of 
his  No-oiim  Test.  Extra  Can.  Rec.,  published  also  a  Greek  text 
of  the  lost  part  of  the  work,  basing  it  upon  a  pretended  transcription 
by  Simonides  from  the  lost  Athos  MS.  But  this  has  been  conclu- 
sively shown  to  be  a  mere  fraud  on  the  part  of  Simonides,  and  we 
are  therefore  still  without  any  MS.  authority  for  the  Greek  text 
of  the  close  of  the  work.  Cf.  Robinson's  introduction  to  the 
Collation  of  Lamlros  mentioned  above,  and  Harnack  s  arti- 
cles in  OatTheol. "(1887).  The  most  useful 
edition  of  the  original  is  that  of  Oebhardt  and  Harnack,  latrnm 
Apost.  Opera,  Fasc.  III.  (Lips.  1877).  The  work  is  translated 
in  the  Ante.Nicene  Fathers,  Vol.  II.  The  literature  upon  t 
subject  is  very  extensive,  but  the  reader  should  examine  espe- 
cially the  Prolegomena  of  Harnack  in  his  edition.  Cf.  /aim  s  Hirt 
des  Hennas  (1868),  and  the  article  by  Salmon  in  the  inn.  oj 
Christ.  Biog.  II.  p.  9»  sqq.  Cf.  also  chap  24  note  20,  m  regard 
to  the  reasons  for  the  uon-canonicity  of  the  Shepliera. 



[in.  4. 


77if  J<"ii'st 


1  THAI'   Paul  preached  to  the  Gentiles  and 

laid  the  foundations  of  the  churches  "  from 
Jerusalem  round  about  even  unto  lllyricum,"  is 
evident  both  from  his  own  words.1  and  from  the 

account  which  Luke  has  given  in   the  Acts." 

2  And     in     how     many     provinces      Peter 
preached   Christ    and    taught   the   doctrine 

of  the  new  covenant  to  those  of  the  circumcis- 
ion is  clear  from  his  own  words  in  his  epistle 
altvadv  mentioned  as  undisputed/  in  which  he 
wrues  to  the  Hebrews  of  the  dispersion  in  Pon- 
tr.s.  Galatia,  Cappadocia,  Asia,  and  Bithy- 

3  uia.'1      But  the   number  and   the  names  of 
those  among   them   that   became   true  and 

/calous    followers    of    the    apostles,    and    were 

judged  worth}'  to  tend  the  churches  founded  by 

them,   it   is   not   easy  to  tell,  except   those 

4  mentioned  in  the  writings  of  Paul.     For  he 
had    innumerable    fellow-laborers,    or   '•  fel- 
low-soldiers,"  as   he   called   them/'  and  most  of 
them  were  honored  by  him  with  an  imperishable 

memorial,   for  he  gave   enduring  testimony 

5  concerning  them  in  his  own  epistles.     Luke 
also  in  the  Acts  speaks  of  his  friends,  and 
mentions  them  by  name.1' 

6  Timothy,  so  it  is  recorded,  was  the  first 
to    receive    the    episcopate    of    the    parish 

i  i    Lphesus,'    Titus  of  the  churches  in  Crete.8 


ix.   27,   and  often);   John   Mar1,; 

1  :  xv.  ••.  :  :-:,..  xv.  40  :  Timothy  (xvi.  i  sqi 
Aquila  and  Priscii'a  (xviii.) ;  Krastus  (xix.  22);  (',, 
d'inia  (xix.  2,  ;  Ari  Lurchus  (xix.  2.j\  xx.  4;  xx\ii 
Set  nmlus,  Gains  of  J)c:i,e  (perhaps  the  same  as  the  ( 
,  and  Tycbichus  (xx.  4!  ;  Trophimus  (xx.  4: 

1  'I'hat  Timothy  was  the  fir.-t  bi.-hop  of  Kphesus  is  stated  also  by 
the  A/>Pst.  Const.  (VII.  46;,  and  by  Nicephorus  (If.  E.  III.  n), 
.vho  records  (upon  what  authority  we  do  not  know)  that  he  suffered 
martyrdom  under  Domitinn.  A.:, oust  the  tradition  that  he  labored 
during  his  later  in  F.phe.-n.-  t'  ere  is  nothing  to  be  urged;  though 
on  the  other  hand  the  evidence:  f  >r  it  amounts  to  little,  as  it  seems  to  be 
no  more  than  a  conclusion  drawn  fr  mi  the  F.pi  -ties  toTimothy, though 
inirdlv  a  i  in  r'.i  .  i  '  .  1  ;iins  him.-.e!f,  for  he  uses  the  word 

...  to  ii  iply  t'lat  he  had  some  authority  for  his 
g  to  tho  e  .  -.istles,  he  was  at  the  time  of  their 
compoMti  in  in  l-'.ph  istis,  thon.  h  they  give  us  no  hint  as  to  whether 
he  was  afu  rward  there  or  IT  t.  From  Heb.  xiii.  23  (the  date  of 
v.  hi  h  we  d  ,  not  know)  we  learn  th  it  he  h. .d  just  been  released  from 
,  ;:  •  minent,  apparent!1,-  in  Italy,  but  whither  he  afterward 
u  it  i-  (,  ii;e  tine,  rtain.  Ktif  ii.vus'  report  that  he  was  bishop  of 
Kjihesus  i-  ihe  customary  but  unwarranted  carrying  back  into  the 
fir  t  century  of  the  monarchical  episcopate  which  was  not  known 
until  the  second.  According  to  the  A/-nst.  (',>;.-../.  VI  I.  46  both  Tim- 
oT:y  and  John  were  bishops  of  FphesUs,  t!ie  firmer  appointed  by 
Paul,  the  hnu i by  him-elf.  Timothy  i.-  a  saint  in  the  Roman  Catholic 
sense,  and  is  commemorated  January  24. 

"  Cf.  Tit.  i.  5.  Titn>  is  commonly  connected  by  tradition  with 
Crete,  of  which  he  is  supposed  to  have  been  the  first  bishop,  —  the 
later  institution  being  again  pushed  back  into  the  first  century.  In 
the  fragment  ,fe  I  'it',i  ,'t  .  let  is  '/'///.  by  the  lawyer  Zenas  (in  Fabric. 
Ci>,/.  .•!/":-.  .V.  T.  11.3  i  sqq.,  according  to  How'son,  in  Smith's  Diet. 
<]ft'ii'  /.'/".'),  he  is  said  !•>  have  been  bishop  of  Gortyna,  a  city  of 
Crete  (where  slid  st..;.d  t'.e  ruins  of  a  church  which  bears  his  name) , 
and  of  a  royal  Cretan  family  by  birth.  This  tradition  is  late,  and, 
of  course,  of  little  a.ith  irity,  but  at  the  same  time,  accords  very 
well  with  all  that  we  kn  :v  of  Titus;  and  consequently  there  is  no 
reason  for  denying  it  /;.'  ti'to.  According  to  2  Tim.  iv.  10,  he  went, 
or  was  sent,  into  Dalmatia;  but  universal  tradition  ascribes  his  later 
life  and  his  deatli  to  Crete.  Candia,  the  modern  capital,  claims  the 

But  Luke,1'  who  was  of  Antiochian  parent-  7 
age  and  a  physician  by  profession,10  and 
who  was  especially  intimate  with  Paul  and  well 
acquainted  with  the  rest  of  the  apostles,"  lias 
left  us,  in  two  inspired  books,  proofs  of  that 
spiritual  healing  art  which  he  learned  from  them. 
One  of  these  books  is  the  Gospel,12  which  he 
testifies  that  he  wrote  as  those  who  were  from 
the  beginning  eye-witnesses  and  ministers  of  the 
word  delivered  unto  him,  all  of  whom,  as  he 
says,  he  followed  accurately  from  the  first. 1:i  The 
other  book  is  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  !1  which  he 

is  burial  place  (see  Cave's  A^str'ui,  ed.  1*77, 
i  saint,  in  the  Roman  Catholic  sense,  and  is  com- 
ry  4. 

-on. illy  we  know  very  little.  He  is  not  mentioned 
only  three  limes  in  Paul's  epistles  (Col.  iv.  14; 
!  liilem.  -.!4:  2  Tim.  iv.  n),  from  which  passages  we  learn  that  he 
v  as  a  physician,  was  one  of  Paul's  fellow-workers  who  was  very 
dear  to  him,  and  was  with  him  during  his  last  imprisonment.  Ire- 
n-a  us,  who  is  the  first  to  ascnhe  the  third  Gospel  and  the  Acts  to  this 
I ,uke,  seems  to  know  nothing  more  about  him  personally.  F'aise- 
bins  is  the  fust  to  record  that  he  was  born  at  Antioch;  but  the  tradi- 
tion must  have  bi-en  univeis  lly  accepted  in  his  day,  as  he  states  it 
v.  any  misgivings  and  with  no  qualifying  phrase.  Jerome  (iff 
i-:>-.  ill.  7)  anil  many  later  writers  fallow  Eusebius  in  this  statement. 
There  is  no  intrinsic  improbability  in  the  tradition,  which  seems,  in 
fact,  to  lie  favored  by  certain  minor  notices  in  the  Acts  (see  Schaff, 
(',;.  Hint.  I.  651).  Gregory  Na/ianzen  (Oral.  25)  says  that  he 
labored  ill  Achaia,  and  in  Orat.  4  he  calls  him  a  martyr.  Jerome 
(il'id.)  says  that  he  was  buried  in  Constantinople.  According  to 
Xicephqrus  (//.  /-.'.  II.  43)  and  later  writers,  Luke  was  a  painter  of 
great  skill;  but  this  late  tradition,  of  which  the  earlier  Fathers  know 
nothing,  is  quite  worthless.  Lpiphanius  (liter.  II.  n)  makes  him 
one  of  the  Seventy,  which  does  not  accord  with  Luke's  own  words 
at  the  beginning  of  his  Gospel,  v.  here  he  certainly  implies  that  he 
hum-elf  was  not  an  eye-witness  of  the  events  which  he  records.  In 
the  same  connection,  F.piphanius  says  that  lie  labored  in  Dalmatia, 
Gaiiia,  Italy, and  Macedonia,  —  a  tradition  which  has  about  as  much 
worth  as  most  such  traditions  in  regard  to  the  fields  of  labor  of  the 
various  ap  istlcs  and  their  followers.  Theophylact  (On  Luke  xxiv. 
13-24)  records  that  some  supposed  that  he  was  one  of  the  disciples 
with  whom  Christ  walked  to  Kmmaus,  and  this  ingenious  but  un- 
founded guess  has  gained  some  modern  supporters  (e.g.  Lange) . 
He  is  a  saint  in  the  Roman  Catholic  sense,  and  is  commemorated 
October  18.  ]"  See  Col.  iv.  14. 

11  Of  Luke's  acquaintance  with  the  other  apostles  we  know 
nothing,  although,  if  we  suppose  him  to  have  been  the  author  of  the 
"  We"  sections  in  the  Acts,  he  was  with  Paul  in  Jerusalem  at  the 
tune  he  was  taken  prisoner  (Acts  xxi.),  when  he  met  James  at  least, 
and  possibly  others  of  the  Twelve.  It  is  not  at  all  improbable  that 
in  the  course  of  his  life  he  became  acquainted  with  several  of  the 

]-  The  testimony  to  the  existence  of  our  third  Gospel,  although 
it  is  not  so  old  as  that  for  Matthew  and  Mark,  is  still  very  early. 
It  was  used  by  Marcion,  who  based  upon  it  his  own  mutilated  gos- 
pel, and  is  ([noted  very  frequently  by  Justin  Martyr.  The  Go>pel 
is  first  distinctly  ascribed  to  Luke  by  Irenams  (III.  i.  i)  and  by  the 
Muratorian  Fragment.  From  that  time  on  tradition  was  unanimoi;.-, 
both  as  to  its  authorship  and  its  authority.  The  common  opinion  — 
still  defended  by  the  great  m::j  irity  of  conservative  critics  —  has 
always  been  that  the  third  Gospel  was  written  before  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem.  The  radical  critics  of  the  present  century,  however, 
bring  its  composition  down  to  a  latter  date — ranging  all  the  way 
from  70  to  140  (the  latter  is  P.aur's  date,  which  is  now  universally 
recognized  as  very  wild).  Many  conservative  critics  put  its  compo- 
sition after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  on  account  of  the  peculiar 
form  of  its  eschatological  discourses  —  e.g.  Weiss,  who  puts  it  be- 
tween 70  and  80  (while  putting  Matthew  and  Mark  U  fore  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem).  The  traditional  and  still  prevalent  opin- 
ion is  that  Luke's  Gospel  was  written  later  than  those  of  Matthew 
and  Mark.  See  the  various  commentaries  and  New  Testament 
Introductions,  and  for  a  clear  exhibition  of  the  synoptical  problem 
in  general,  see  Schaff 's  C/i.  Hist.  I.  p.  607  sqq.  On  Luke  in  partic- 
ular, p.  648  sqq.  "  Luke  i.  2,  3. 

11  Traces  of  a  knowledge  of  the  Acts  are  found  in  the  Apostolic 
Fathers,  in  Justin,  and  in  Tatian,  and  before  the  end  of  the  second 
century  the  book  occupied  a  place  in  the  Canon,  undisputed  except 
by  heretics,  such  as  the  Marcionites,  Manichcans,  &c.  The  Mura- 
torian Fragment  and  Irenajus  (III.  14)  are  the  first  to  mention  Luke 
as  the  author  of  the  Acts,  but  from  that  time  on  tradition  has  been 
unanimous  in  ascribing  it  to  him.  The  only  exception  occurs  in  the 
case  of  Photius  (ltd  Amphil.  Qin,  ../.  123,  cd.  Migne),  who  states 
that  the  work  was  ascribed  by  some  to  Clement,  by  others  to  Harna- 
bas,  and  by  others  to  Luke;  but  it  is  probable,  as  Weiss  remarks, 
that  Photius,  in  this  case,  confuses  the  Acts  with  the  F.pistle  to  the 
Hebrews.  As  to  the  date  of  its  composition,  Iren.xus  (III.  i.  i) 
seems  (one  cannot  speak  with  certainty,  as  some  have  done)  to  put 




composed  not  from  the  accounts  of  others, 

8  but  from  what  he  had  seen  himself.     And 
they  say  that  I'aul  meant  to  refer  to  Luke's 

( iospel   wherever,  as  if  speaking  of  some  gospel 
of  his  own,  he  used  the  words,  "according 

9  to  my  dospel."1''     As  to  the  rest  of  his  fol- 
lowers, Paul  testifies  that  Crescens  was  sent 

to  Ciaul ; "'  but  Linus,  whom  he  mentions  in  the 

it  after  the  death  of  Peter  and  Paul,  and  therefore,  necessarily,  the 
Acts  .still  later.  The  Miiraioriaii  Fragment  implies  that  the  \vork 
was  written  at  least  after  the  death  of  Peler.  Later,  however,  the 
tradition  arose  that  the  work  was  written  during  the  lifetime  of  Paid 
(so  Jerome,  rtV  rr/V.  ///.  7),  and  this  has  been  the  prevailing  opinion 
among  conservative  scholars  ever  since,  although  many  put  the 
composition  between  the  death  of  Paul  and  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
salem ;  while  some  (e.g.  Weiss)  put  it  after  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
salem, though  still  assigning  it  to  Luke.  The  opposite  school  of 
critics  deny  Luke's  authorship,  throwing  the  book  into  the  latter 
part  of  the  first  century  (Scholten,  Hilgenfeld,  &c.) ,  or  into  the  times 
of  Trajan  and  Hadrian  (e.g.  Volkmar,  K.eim,  Hausrath,  &c.).  The 
Tubingen  School  saw  in  the  Acts  a  "  tendency-writing,"  in  which 
the  history  was  intentionally  perverted.  This  theory  finds  few 
supporters  at  present,  even  among  the  most  extreme  critics,  nil  of 
whom,  however,  consider  the  book  a  source  of  the  second  rank, 
containing  much  that  is  legendary  and  distorted  and  irreconcilable 
with  Paul's  Epistles,  which  are  looked  upon  as  the  only  reliable 
source.  The  question  turns  upon  the  relation  of  the  author  of  the 
"we"  sections  to  the  editor  of  the  whole.  Conservative  scholars 
agree  with  universal  tradition  in  identifying  them  (though  this  is 
not  necessary  in  order  to  maintain  the  historical  accuracy  of  the 
work),  while  the  opposite  school  denies  the  identity,  considering  the 
"we"  sections  authentic  historical  accounts  from  the  pen  of  a 
companion  of  Paul,  which  were  afterward  incorporated  into  a  larger 
work  by  one  who  was  not  a  pupil  of  Paul.  The  identity  of  the 
author  of  the  third  Gospel  and  of  the  Acts  is  now  admitted  by  all 
parties.  See  the  various  Commentaries  and  New  Testament  Intro- 
ductions; and  upon  the  sources  of  the  Acts,  compare  especially 
Weizsacker's  Apost.  Zeitalter,  p.  182  sqq.,  and  Weiss'  Einleitutig, 
p.  5 fx;  sq. 

'••  Rom.  ii.  16,  xvi.  25;  2  Tim.  ii.  8.  Eusebius  uses  the  expres- 
sion tl>a.<ri,  "  they  say,"  which  seems  to  imply  that  the  interpreta- 
tion was  a  common  one  in  his  day.  Schaff  (('/;.  Hist.  I.  p.  649) 
says  that  Origen  also  thus  interpreted  the  passages  in  Romans  and 
Timothy  referred  to,  but  he  gives  no  references,  and  I  have  not 
been  able  to  find  in  <  )rigen's  works  anything  to  confirm  the  state- 
ment. Indeed,  in  commenting  upon  the  passages  in  the  Epistle  to 
the  Romans  he  takes  the  words  "  my  (iospel  "  to  refer  to  the  gospel 
preached  by  Paul,  not  to  the  Gospel  written  by  Luke.  It  is  true, 
however,  that  in  the  passage  from  his  Commentary  on  Matthew, 
quoted  by  Eusebius  in  VI.  25,  below,  Origen  does  suppose  Paul 
to  refer  to  Luke  and  his  Gospel  in  2  Cor.  viu.  18.  The  interpre- 
tation of  the  words  "  according  to  my  Gospel,"  which  Etise- 
bius  represents  as  common  in  his  day,  is  adopted  also  by  Jerome 
(de  T'/r.  ///.  chap.  7),  but  is  a  gross  exegetical  blunder.  Paul 
never  uses  the  word  fvayye\tov  in  such  a  sense,  nor  is  it  used 
by  any  New  Testament  writer  to  designate  the  gospel  record,  or 
anyone  of  the  written  Gospels.  It  is  used  always  in  the  general 
sense  of  "  glad  tidings,"  or  to  denote  the  scheme  of  salvation,  or 
the  substance  of  the  gospel  revelation.  Eusebius  is  not  the  ttrst  to 
connect  Luke's  Gospel  with  Paul.  The  Muratorian  Fragment 
speaks  of  Luke's  connection  with  Paul,  and  Tren:eus  (111.  i.  i, 
quoted  below  in  V.  8.  §  2)  says  directly  that  Luke  recorded  the 
Gospel  preached  by  Paul.  Tertullian  (Adv.  Murciini.  IV .  5)  tells 
us  that  Luke's  form  of  the  Gospel  is  usually  ascribed  to  Paul,  and 
in  the  same  work,  IV.  2,  he  lays  down  the  principle  that  the  preach- 
ing of  the  disciples  of  the  apostles  needs  the  authority  of  the  apostles 
themselves,  and  it  is  in  accord  with  this  principle  that  so  much 
stress  was  laid  by  the  early  Church  upon  the  connection  of  Mark 
with  Peter  and  of  Luke  with  Paul.  In  ch  ip.  24  Eusebius  refers 
again  to  Luke's  relation  to  Paul  in  connection  with  his  Gospel,  and 
so,  too,  Origen,  as  quoted  by  Eusebius,  Ilk.  VI.  chap.  25.  The 
Pauline  nature  of  the  (iospel  has  always  been  emphasized,  and  still 
is  by  the  majority  of  scholars.  This  must  not  be  carried  so  far, 
however,  as  to  imply  that  Luke  drew  his  materials  from  Paul;  for 
I'aul  himself  was  not  an  eye-witness,  and  Luke  expressly  states  in 
his  preface  the  causes  which  induced  him  to  write,  and  the  sources 
from  which  he  derived  his  material.  The  influence  of  Paul  is  seen 
in  Luke's  standpoint,  and  in  his  general  spirit  —  his  Gospel  is  the 
Gospel  of  universal  salvation. 

li;  2  Tim.  iv.  10,  where  the  Greek  word  used  is  tTropei'flr;,  which 
means  simply  "  went  "  or  "  is  gone."  That  Paul  had  sent  him  as 
Eusebius  states  (using  the  word  (jreiAd/xet'O?)  is  not  implied  in  the 
epistle.  Instead  of  <ti  Tfi;  1'aAAta?  (or  T>JI-  l'aAA:ai')  most  of  the 
ancient  MSS.  of  the  New  Testament  have  eis  r«AaTinr,  which  is 
the  reading  of  the  Textus  Receptus,  of  Tregelles,  of  Westcott  ai.d 
Hort  and  others.  Some  MSS.,  however  (including  the  Sinaitic), 
have  rnAAi'ar,  which  Tischendorf  adopts ;  and  some  of  the  MSS.  of 
Eusebius  also  have  this  form,  though  the  majority  read  rav  1'aAAia?. 
Christophorsonus  in  his  edition  of  Eusebius  reads  en\  ~'n'  VnAnn'nr, 
but  entirely  without  MS.  authority.  Epiphanius  {liter.  LI.  ii) 

Second  Epistle  to  Timothy1'  as  his  companion 
at  Rome,  was  Peter's  successor  in  the  episco- 
pate of  the  church  there,  as  has  already 
been  shown.18  Clement  also,  who  was  ap- 
pointed third  bishop  of  the  church  at  Rome, 
was,  as  Paul  testifies,  his  co-laborer  and  fel- 
low-soldier.19 Besides  these,  that  Areopa- 
gite,  named  Dionysius,  who  was  the  first  to 
believe  after  Paul's  address  to  the  Athenians  in 
the  Areopagus  (as  recorded  by  Luke  in  the 
Acts)1'0  is  mentioned  by  another  Dionysius,  an 



contends   that  in  2   Tim.    iv.   10   should   be  read    I'aAAia   and   not 

:    oil  yap   t!'   ir\    FaAaria 

i  I'aAAca.      1  heodoret  (in  2  Tim.  IV.  10)  reads  1'aAo.T 

but   interprets   it   as   meaning   ras    IVAA 

17  2  Tim.  iv.  2T.  ltf  See  chap.  2,  note  i,  above. 

111  Clement  is  mentioned  in  Phil.  iv.  3,  but  is  not  called  a  "  fellow- 
soldier."  Eusebius  was  evidently  thinking  of  Paul's  references  to 
Epaphroditus  (Phil.  ii.  25)  and  to  Archippus  (Philem.  2),  whom 
he  calls  his  fellow-soldiers.  The  Clement  to  whom  Eusebius  here 
refers  was  a  very  important  personage  in  the  early  Roman  church, 
being  known  to  tradition  as  one  of  its  first  tlnce  bishops.  He  has 
played  a  prominent  part  in  Church  history  on  account  of  the  numei- 
ons  writings  which  have  passed  under  his  name.  We  know  nothing 
certain  about  his  life.  Eusebius  identifies  him  with  the  PI  ilippian 
Clement  mentioned  by  Paul,  —  an  identification  apparently  made 
first  by  Origen,  and  after  him  repeated  by  a  great  many  writers. 
But  the  identification  is,  to  say  the  least,  \ery  doubtful,  and  resting 
as  it  does  upon  an  agreement  in  a  very  common  name  desei\es  little 
consideration.  It  was  quite  customary  in  the  early  (  hurch  to  find 
Paul's  companions,  whenever  possible,  in  responsible  and  influential 
positions  during  the  latter  part  of  the  first  century.  A  more  plausi- 
ble theory,  which,  if  true,  would  throw  an  interesting  light  upon 
Clement  and  the  Roman  church  of  his  day,  is  that  \\luch  identifies 
him  with  the  consul  Flavins  Clement,  a  relative  of  the  emperor  Do- 
initian  (see  below,  chap.  18,  note  6).  Some  good  reasons  for  (he 
identification  might  be  urged,  and  his  rank  would  then  explain  well 
Clement's  influential  position  in  the  Church.  But  as  pointed  out  in 
chap.  18,  note  6,  it  is  extremely  improbable  that  the  consul  Flavins 
Clement  was  a  Christian;  and  in  any  case  a  fatal  objection  to  the 
identification  (which  is  nevertheless  adi  pud  by  1  lilgtnfcld  and 
others)  is  the  fact  that  Clement  is  nowhere  spoken  of  as  a  maityr 
until  the  time  of  Rufinus,  and  also  that  no  ancient  \\riter  identifies 
him  or  connects  him  in  any  way  with  the  consul,  although  Eusebius' 
mention  of  the  latter  in  ch,ap.  23  shows  that  he  was  a  well-known 
person.  When  we  remember  the  tendency  of  the  early  Church  to 
make  all  its  heroes  martyrs,  and  to  ascribe  high  birth  to  them,  the 
omission  in  this  case  renders  the  identification,  we  may  say,  virtually 
impossible.  More  probable  is  the  coi jecture  of  I.ightfoot,  that  he 
was  a  freedman  belonging  to  the  family  of  the  consul  Clement,  whose 
name  he  bore.  This  is  simply  icijicture,  hov.  ever,  and  is  supported 
by  no  testimony.  Whoever  Clement  was,  he  occupied  a  very  promi- 
nent position  in  the  early  Roman  church,  and  wrote  an  epistle  to 
the  Corinthians  which  is  still  extant  (see  below,  chap.  16;  and  upon 
the  works  falsely  ascribed  to  him,  see  chap.  38).  In  regard  to  his 

?lace  in  the  succession  of  Roman  bishops,  see  chap.  2,  note  i,  above, 
'or  a  full  account  of  Clement,  see  especially  Harnack's  Prolegomena 
to  his  edition  of  Clement's  Epistle  (L'atniiii  Apfst.  (>/'<-ra,  Vol.  I.), 
Salmon's  article,  Clt'incus  Remain, s,  in  the  J'lil.  < /  C/ifitf.  /'/<>£., 
Schaff 's  C/i.  Hit.t.  II.  636  sq.,  and  Donaldson's  Hist,  nf  Christ. 
Lit.  and  Doctrine,  I.  p.  go  sq. 

-"  Acts  xvii.  34.  This  Dionysius  has  played  an  important  part 
in  Church  history,  as  the  pretended  author  of  a  series  of  very  re- 
markable writings,  which  pass  under  the  name  of  Dionysius,  the 
Areopagite,  but  which  in  reality  date  from  the  fifth  or  sixth  century, 
and  probably  owe  their  origin  to  the  influence  of  Neo-Platonism. 
The  first  mention  of  these  writings  is  in  the  records  of  the 
of  Constantinople  (=532  A.D.) ;  1ml  from  that  time  on  they  were  con- 
stantly used  and  unanimously  ascribed  to  Dionysius,  the  Areopa- 
gite, until,  in  the  seventeenth  century,  their  claims  to  so  great  an- 
tiquity were  disputed.  They  are  still  defended,  however,  in  the  face 
of  the  most  positive  evidence,  by  many  Roman  Catholic  writers. 
The  influence  of  these  works  upon  the  theology  of  the  Middle  Ages 
was  prodigious.  Scholasticism  may  be  said  to  be  based  upon  them, 
for  Thomas  Aquinas  used  them,  perhaps,  more  than  any  other 
source;  so  much  so,  that  he  has  been  said"  to  have  drawn  his  whole 
theological  system  from  Dionysius." 

Our  Di'-m-sius  has  had  the  further  honor  of  being  identified  by 
tradition  with  Dionysius  (St.  Denis),  the  patron  saint  of  France, — 
an  idemificaiion  which  we  may  follow  the  most  loyal  of  the  French 
in  accepting,  if  we  will,  though  we  shall  be  obliged  to  suppose  that 
our  Dionysius  lived  to  the  good  old  age  of  two  to  three  hundred 

The  statement  of  Dionysius  of  Corinth  that  the  Areopagite  was 
bishop  of  Athens  (repeated  by  Eusebins  again  in  Bk.  IV.  chap.  23) 
is  the  usual  unwarranted  throwing  back  of  a  second  century  con- 
ception into  the  first  century.  That  Dionysius  held  a  position  of 



[in.  4. 

ancient  writer  ami  pastor  of  the  parish  in  (  or- 
iiith.-'  as  the  fir.-t  bishop  of  the  church  at 

12  Athens,  lint  the  events  connected  with  the 
apostolic  succession  \ve  shall  relate  at  the 

proper    time.      Meanwhile   let    us   continue    the 

coulee  of  our  history. 

CI1A1TFR    V. 

,!//,'>•  Chris/. 

1  AFIT.K  Nero  had  held  the  power  thirteen 
years,1  ami    ('.alba    and    ( )tho    ha.d    ruled  a 

year  and  six  months,"  Vespasian,  who  had.  be- 
roine  distinguished  in  the  campaigns  against  th.e 
|r\vs,  was  proclaimed  sovereign  in  Judea  and 
received  the  title  of  Fmpcror  from  the  armies 
there.''  Selling  out  immediately,  therefore,  for 
Rome,  he  entrusted  the  conduct  of  the  war 

2  against  the  jews  to  his  son  Titus.1      For  the 
jews  after  the  ascension  of  our  Saviour,  in 

addition  to  their  crime  against  him,  had  been 
devising  as  many  plots  as  they  could  against  his 
apostles.  First  Stephen  was  stoned  to  death  by 
them/'  and  after  him  James,  the  son  of  Zebedee 
and  the  brother  of  John,  was  beheaded,''1  and 
finally  lames,  the  first  that  had  obtained  the 
episcopal  seat  in  Jerusalem  after  the  ascension 
of  our  Savior.r,  d'ied  in  the  manner  already  de- 
scribed.7 Hut  the  rest  of  the  apostles,  who  had 
been  incessantly  plotted  against  with  a  view  to 
their  destruction,  and  had  been  driven  out  of 
the  land  of  Judea,  went  unto  all  nations  to 
preach  the  Gospel;"  relying  upon  the  power  of 
Christ,  who  had  said  to  them,  "  do  ye  and  make 

disciples  of  all  the  nations  in  my  name."  l 
3  lint  the  people  of  the  church  in  Jerusa- 

lem had  been  commanded  by  a  revelation, 
vouchsafed   to  approved  men  there  before  the 

influence  among  the  few  Christians  whom  Pan!  left  in  Athens  is 
hi"hly  probable  and  the  tradition  that  later  lie  was  made  the  first 
biChop  there  is  (|iiite  natural.  The  church  of  Athens  plays  no  part 
in  the  history  of  the  apostolic  age,  and  it  is  improbable  that  there 
was  any  organization  there  until  many  years  after  Paul's  visit;  for 
eve  i  in"  the  lime  of  1  >iouysius  of  Corinth,  the  church  there  seems  to 
have  been  extremely  small  and  weak  (cf.  i::-:.  IV.  chap.  23  §2). 
Com  Dionysius  and  the  writings  a,crib.  I  I  ;.  L,  see  especially  the 
uticleof  Lupton  in  the  Diet,  of  Christ.  /•'/, '.:.'.  I.  1>.  -I'  848- 
i  Upon  !>i.>nj  in  of  Corinth,  see  l',k.  IV.  chap,  'j;,,  "-low. 

1  Nero  was  emperor  from  Oct.  10,  5J,  to  June  9,  ui  A.o. 

2  Kusebius'  figures  are  inconcct.      He   omits  Vitellius  entirely, 
while  he  stretches  Galha's  and  Otho'srcisns  to  make  them  cover  a 
period  of  eighteen    months,   instead   of  nine    (Oalha    reigned   from 
lime  9,  68,  to  Jan.  15,  69;   and  (')tho  from  Jan.  is   to  April  20,  69). 

"The  total  of  the  three  reigns  of  ( lalba,  <  >tho,  and  \  itellius  was  about 
eighteen  months. 

»  Vespasian  was  proclaimed  emperor  by  the  prefect  of  Egypt  at 
Alexandria,  July  1,69,  while  Vitellius  was  the  acknowledged  em- 
peror in  Italy.  His  choice  was  immediately  ratified  by  his  army  in 
Judea,  and  then  by  all  the  legions  in  the  Kast.  Vitelhns  was  con- 
quered by  Vespasian's  generals,  and  slain  in  Italy,  Dec.  20,  69, 
while  Vespasian  himself  went  to  Alexandria.  The  latter  was  imme- 
diately recognized  by  the  Senate,  and  reached  Italy  in  the  summer 
of  70.  Eusebius  is  thus  approximately  correct,  though  he  is  not 
exact  as  to  details. 

1  Titus  undertook  the  prosecution  of  the  war  against  tlie  Jews 
after  his  father's  departure,  and  brought  the  siege  of  Jerusalem  to 
an  end,  Sept.  8,  70  A.D. 

•r>  See  Acts  vil.  8  sqq.  a  See  chap,  i,  note  i. 

«  See  Acts  xii.  2.  u  See  Matt,  xxviu.  19. 

'  Sec  Bk.  II.  chap.  23. 

war,  to   leave   the  city  and  to  dwell  in  a  certain 
town  of  1'erea  called    1'ella.1"     And  when   those 
that  believed  in  Christ   had  come   thither   from 
Jerusalem,  then,  as  if  the  royal  city  of  the  Jews 
and  the  whole  land  of  Judea  were  entirely  desti- 
tute of  holy  men,  the  judgment  of  Cod  at  length 
overtook   those  who   had    committed    such   out- 
rages against  Christ  and  his  apostles,  and  totally 
destroyed  that  generation  of  impious   men. 
lint  the  number  of  calamities  which  every-        4 
where  fell  upon  the  nation  at  that  time,  the 
extreme  misfortunes  to  which  the  inhabitants  of 
Judea  were   especially  subjected,  the   thousands 
of  men,    as   well   as  women  and   children,   that 
perished  by  the  :  word,  by  famine,  and  by  other 
forms  of  death  innumerable,  —  all  these  things,  as 
well  as  the  many  great  sieges  which  were  carried 
on  against  the  cities  of  Judea,  and  the  excessive 
sufferings  endured  by  those  that  fled   to  Jerusa- 
lem   itself,    as   to  a  city  of  perfect    safety,   and 
finally  the  general   course   of  the  whole  war,  as 
well  as  its  particular  occurrences   in   detail,  and 
how  at  last  the  abomination   of  desolation,  pro- 
claimed  by   the   prophets,11   stood   in   the  very 
temple  of  Cod,  so  celebrated  of  old,  the  temple 
which  was  now  awaiting  its  total  and    final   de- 
struction by  fire,  —  all  these  things  any  one  that 
wishes  may  find  accurately  described  in  the  his- 
tory written  by  Josephus. '- 

But  it  is  necessary  to  state  that  this  writer       5 
records   that   the   multitude   of  those   who 
were  assembled  from  all  Judea  at  the  time  of  the 
Passover,  to  the  number  of  three  million  souls,1" 
were  shut  up  in  Jerusalem  "as  in  a  prison," 
to  use   his  own  words.      For  it  was  right       6 
that  in  the  very  days  in  which  they  had  in- 
flicted suffering  upon  the  Saviour  and  the  Bene- 
factor of  all,  the  Christ  of  Cod,  that  in  those 
days,   shut    up    "as  in  a   prison,"   they  should 
meet  with  destruction  at   the   hands   of   divine 

But  passing  by  the  particular  calamities        7 
which  they  suffered  from  the  attempts  made 
upon  them  by  the  sword  and  by  other  means,  I 
think  it.  necessary  to  relate  only  the  misfortunes 
which   the   famine   caused,  that   those  who  read 

i"  Telia  was  a  town  situated  beyond  the  Jordan,  in  the  north  of 
Perea,  within  the  dominions  of  Herod  Agrippa  II.  The  surround- 
ing population  was  chiefly  Gentile.  See  Pliny  V.  18  and  Josephus 
H.y.-lU.  3.  3,  and  I.  4.  S.  Epiphanius  (Dc  pond.'  ft  incus.  15) 
also  records  this  flight  of  the  Christians  to  Pella. 

»   Dan.  ix.  27.  12  Josephns,  B.J.  P,ks.  V.  and  \  I. 

i"  I).  y.  V 1 .  9,  §§  3  and  4.     Eusebius  simply  gives  round  numbers. 
Tosephus  in  §  3  puts  the  number  at  2,700,000,  exclusive  of  the      un- 
clean and  the  strangers"  who  were  not  allowed   to  eat  the  1  assoycr. 
In  the  same  work,  Bk.  II.  chap.  14,  §  3,  Josephns   states  that  when 
Cestius  Gallus,  governor  of  Syria,  came  to  Jerusalem  at  the  time 
of  the  Passover  in  65  A.D.,  no  less  than  3,000,000  persons  came  abo 
him  to  enter  complaint  against  the  procurator   Floras.      Ihese  num- 
bers are  -grossly  exaggerated.     Tacitus  estimates  the  number  in  the 
city  at  the  time  of  the  siege  as  600,000,  but   this,  too,   is  far  above 
the  truth.     The  writer  of  the  article  Jerusalem,™  Smiths  ht(,U 
llict.   estimates  that  the  city  can  never  have  had  a  population  ot 
more  than  50,000  souls,  and  he  concludes  that  at  the  time  of  t 
siege  there  cannot  have  been  more  than  60,000  or  70,000  collccte 
within  the  walls.     This  is  probably  too  low  an  estimate,  but  show, 
how  far  out  of  the  way  the  figures  of  Josephus  and  lacitus  must  be. 

III.  6.J 

Till-:    FA  MINK    IN    JKRUSALKM. 

this  work  may  have  some  means  <,f  knowing  that 
Cod  was  not  long  in  executing  vengeance  upon 
them  for  their  wickedness  against  the  Christ  of 


The  ]<\i/ninc  which  oppressed  them. 

1  TAKIXI;   the   fifth  book  of  the  History  of 

Josephus    again    in    our    hands,   let    us    go 
through    the    tragedy  of  events  which   then 

n  i    1          ,,    .,  ,  ,     ,  ,.    ,  l-U       UH,U      111L 

2       occurred       «  1-  or  the  wealthy/;  he  says,  «  ,t   the  d 

peared,  to  rob  them  even  of  these  portions  of 
food.  For  whenever  they  saw  a  hoiine  shut  up, 
they  regarded  it  as  a  sign  that  those  inside  were 
taking  food.  And  immediately  bursting  open 
the  doors  they  rushed  in  and  seized  what  they 
were  eating,  almost  forcing  it  out  of  their 
very  throats.  Old  men  who  clung  to  their  9 
food  were  beaten,  and  if  the  women  con- 
cealed it  in  their  hands,  their  hair  was  torn  for  so 
doing.  There  was  pity  neither  for  gray  hairs  nor 
for  infants,  but,  taking  up  the  babes  that  citing 
to  their  morsels  of  food,  they  dashed  them  to 

was  equally  dangerous  to  remain.      For  un- 

der pretense  that  they  w 

lo  desert  men 

were  put  to  death   for  their  wealth.     The  mad- 

ness of  the  seditions  increased  with   the  famine, 

and  both  the   miseries  were   inflamed  more 

3        and   more  day  by 

they  found  anything   to  eat  they  tormented  th 

they  tortured  them  on  the  ground  that  they 

it.    Th 

of  their  having  or  not  having  food  was  found 
in  the  bodies  of  the  poor  wretches.  Those  of 
them  who  were  still  in  good  condition  they  as- 
sumed were  well  supplied  with  food,  while  those 
who  were  already  wasted  away  they  passed  by, 

for  it  seemed  absurd  to  slay  those  who  were 

5       on  the    oint  of  perishing  for  want.     Many,  j 

•'      ^-fi 

Hut  t 

that  anticipated  their 

entrance  and  swallowed  what  the    were  about  to 
sei/e,  they  were  still 
they   had   been   wr 
they   devised    the 
torture  to  discover  f 

d,  stopping  up  the  priv 

the  sake  of  compelling  them   to  confess  to  the 

possession   of   one   loaf  of    bread,   or   in 

that   they  might    be    made   to   disclose   a   single 

liut  the  tormentors  themselves  did  not  suf-      11 

one  measure  of  wheat,  li  they  belonged  to  the 
wealthier  class,  of  barley  if  they  were  po 

parts  of  their  houses,  some  ate  the  grain  un- 
cooked on  account  of  their  terrible  want,  while 

others  baked  it  according  as  necessity  and 
6  fear  dictated.  Nowhere  were  tables  set,  but, 

snatching  the  yet  uncooked  food  from  the 
fire,  they  tore  it  in  pieces.  Wretched  was  the 
fare,  and  a  lamentable  spectacle  it  was  to  see  trie- 

ler  hunger.     Their  conduct  might   indeed 
i',  ive    seemed   less   barbarous   if  they  had   been 
driven  to  it  by  necessity;  but  they  did  it  for  the 
sake  of  exercising'  their  madness  and  of  provid- 
ing sustenance  for  themselves  for  days  to 
come.     And  when  any  one  crept  out  of  the      12 

;  night  as  far  as  the  outposts  of  the 
Romans   to   collect   wild   herbs   and  grass,   they 
went  to  meet  him  ;  and  when  he  thought  he  haul 

7        the  weaker  mourned.      Of  all 

s,  indeed, 

famine  is  the  worst,  and  it  destroys  nothint, 
so  effectively  as  shame.  For  that  which  under 
other  circumstances  is  worthy  of  respect,  in  the 
midst  of  famine  is  despised.  Thus  women 
snatched  the  food  from  the  very  mouths  of 
their  husbands  and  children,  from  tiieir  fathers, 
and  what  was  most  pitiable  of  all,  mothers  from 
their  babes.  And  while  their  dearest  ones  were 
wasting  away  in  their  arms,  they  were  not 

ashamed  to  take  away  from  them  the  last 
8  drops  that  supported  life.  And  even  while 

they  were  eating  thus  they  did  not  remain 
undiscovered.  But  everywhere  the  rioters  ap- 

1  Josephus,  1).  7.  13k.  V.  chap.  10,  §§  2  and  3. 

had  brought  with  him,  and  even  though  often- 
times the  man  would  entreat  them,  and,  calling 
upon  the  most  awful  name  of  Clod,  adjure  them 
to  give  him  a  portion  of  what  he  hail  obtained 
at  the  risk  of  his  life,  they  would  give  him  noth- 
ing back.  Indeed,  it  was  fortunate  if  the  one 
that  was  plundered  was  not  also  slain." 

To   this  account   J."sephus,  after  relating 
other   things,    adds    the    following;-    '-'The      13 
possibility  oi    going   out  of  the   city   being 
brought   to   an   end,:;  all  hope  of  safety   for   the 
Jews  was  cut  off.    And  the  famine  increased  and 
devoured   the  people    by  houses    and    families. 
And    the    rooms  were    filled  with    dead   women 
and  children,  the  lanes  of  the  city  with  the 
corpses  of  old  men.      Children  and  youths,      14 
swollen   with   the   famine,   wandered   about 
the  market-places  like  shadows,  and  fell  down 
wherevu-  the  death  agony  overtook  them.      The 
sick  were  not  strong  enough  to  bury  even  their 
own  relatives,  and   those  who  had  the  strength 

I  just 


[in.  (>. 

hesitated  because  of  the  multitude   of  the  dead 

and  the  uncertainty  as  to  their  o\vn  fate.    Many, 

indeed,   died    while   they   were    burying    others, 

an  1  many  betook  themselves  to  their  graves 

15  before  death  came  upon  them.     There  was 
neither  weeping  nor  lamentation  under  these 

misfortunes  ;  but  the  famine  stifled  the  natural 
affections.  Those  that  were  dying  a  lingering 
death  looked  with  dry  eyes  upon  those  that  had 
gone  to  their  rest  before  them.  Deep  silence 
and  death-laden  night  encircled  the  city. 

16  T.ut   the   robbers  were   more    terrible    than 
these    miseries  ;    for   they  broke    open    the 

houses,  which  were  now  mere  sepulchres,  robbed 
the  dead  and  stripped  the  covering  from  their 
bodies,  and  went  away  with  a  laugh.  They  tried  ! 
the  points  of  their  swords  in  the  dead  bodies, 
and  some  that  were  lying  on  the  ground  still 
alive  they  thrust  through  in  order  to  test  their 
weapons.  I?ut  those  that  prayed  that  they  would 
use  their  right  hand  and  their  sword  upon  them, 
they  contemptuously  left  to  be  destroyed  by  the 
famine.  Fvery  one  of  these  died  with  eyes  fixed 
upon  the  temple  ;  and  they  left  the  seditious 

17  alive.     These  at  first  gave  orders  that  the 
dead   should    be    buried    out  of  the  public 

treasury,  for  they  could  not  endure  the  stench. 

But  afterward,  when   they  were  not  able   to  do 

this,  they  threw  the  bodies  from  the  walls 

18  into     the    trenches.       And    as    Titus    went 
around  and  saw  the  trenches  filled  with  the 

dead,   and    the   thick  blood   oozing    out  of   the 

putrid  bodies,  he  groaned  aloud,  and,  raising  his 

hands,  called  God  to  witness  that  this  was 

19  not   his   doing."      After  speaking  of   some 
other    tilings,    Josephus    proceeds    as    fol- 
lows:'1 "I   cannot  hesitate  to  declare  what  my 
feelings  compel  me  to.      I   suppose,  if  the   Ro- 
mans   had    longer    delayed    in    coming    against 
these  guilty  wretches,  the  city  would  have  been 
swallowed   up  by  a  chasm,  or  overwhelmed  with 
a  tlood,  or  struck  with  such  thunderbolts  as  de- 
stroyed  Sodom.       For  it   had   brought   forth    a 
generation    of    men    much    more    godless    than 
were  those  that  suffered  such  punishment.     P>y 
their    madness    indeed    was    the    whole    people 

brought  to  destruction." 

20  And  in  the  sixth  book  he  writes  as  fol- 
lows :"'  "Of  those  that  perished  by  famine 

in  the  city  the  number  was  countless,  and  the 
miseries  they  underwent  unspeakable.  For  if 
so  much  as  the  shadow  of  food  appeared  in  any 
house,  there  was  war,  and  the  dearest  friends  en- 
gaged in  hand-to-hand  conflict  with  one  another, 
and  snatched  from  each  other  the  most  wretched 
supports  of  life.  Nor  would  they  believe 

21  that  even  the  dying  were  without  food  ;  but 
the  robbers  would  search  them  while  they 

were  expiring,  lest  any  one  should  feign  death 
while  concealing  food  in  his  bosom.  With 
mouths  gaping  for  want  of  food,  they  stumbled 
and  staggered  along  like  mad  dogs,  and  beat 
the  doors  as  if  they  were  drunk,  and  in  their 
impotence  they  would  rush  into  the  same 
houses  twice  or  thrice  in  one  hour.  Ne- 
cessity compelled  them  to  eat  anything  22 
they  could  find,  and  they  gathered  and  de- 
voured things  that  were  not  fit  even  for  the  filth- 
iest of  irrational  beasts.  Finally  they  did  not 
abstain  even  from  their  girdles  and  shoes,  and 
they  stripped  the  hides  off  their  shields  and  de- 
voured them.  Some  used  even  wisps  of  old 
hay  for  food,  and  others  gathered  stubble  and 
sold  the  smallest  weight  of  it  for  four  Attic 

"  But  why  should  I  speak  of  the  shame-  23 
lessness  which  was  displayed  during  the 
famine  toward  inanimate  things?  For  I  am 
going  to  relate  a  fact  such  as  is  recorded 
neither  by  Greeks  nor  Barbarians;  horrible  to 
relate,  incredible  to  hear.  And  indeed  I  should 
gladly  have  omitted  this  calamity,  that  I  might 
not  seem  to  posterity  to  be  a  teller  of  fabulous 
tales,  if  I  had  not  innumerable  witnesses  to  it 
in  my  own  age.  And  besides,  I  should  render 
my  country  poor  service  if  I  suppressed  the  ac- 
count of  the  sufferings  which  she  endured. 

"  There    was    a   certain    woman     named     24 
Mary    that    dwelt    beyond    Jordan,    whose 
father  was   Eleazer,  of  the  village  of  Bathezor7 
(which  signifies  the  house  of  hyssop}.     She  was 
distinguished  for  her  family  and  her  wealth,  and 
had  fled  with  the  rest  of  the  multitude  to  Jerusa- 
lem and  was  shut  up  there  with  them  during 
the  siege.    The  tyrants  had  robbed  her  of  the     25 
rest  of  the  property  which  she  had  brought 
with  her  into  the  city  from  Perea.    And  the  rem- 
nants of  her  possessions  and  whatever  food  was 
to    be    seen    the    guards    rushed    in    daily    and 
snatched  away  from  her.    This,  made  the  woman 
terribly  angry,  and  by  her  frequent  reproaches 
and  imprecations  she  aroused  the  anger  of 
the  rapacious  villains  against  herself.     But     26 
no  one  either  through  anger  or  pity  would 
slay  her;  and  she  grew  weary  of  finding  food 
for  others  to  eat.     The  search,  too,  was  already 
become  everywhere  difficult,  and  the  famine  was 
piercing  her  bowels  and  marrow,  and  resentment 
was  raging  more  violently  than  famine.     Taking, 
therefore,  anger  and  necessity  as  her  counsellors, 
she  proceeded  to  do  a  most  unnatural  thing. 
Seizing  her  child,  a  boy  which  was  sucking     27 
at  her  breast,  she  said,  Oh,  wretched  child, 
in  war,  in  famine,  in  sedition,  for  what  do  I  pre- 

4  Ibid.  chap.  13,  §  6. 

5  Ibid.  13k.  VI.  chap.  3,  §§  3  and  4. 

c  'ATTIKW!'  rea-o-apwr;  the  word  $paxn<~>''  is  to  be  supplied.  An 
Attic  drachm,  according  to  some  authorities,  was  equal  to  about 
fifteen  cents,  according  to  others  (among  them  Liddell  and  Scott) 
to  about  nineteen  cents. 

*  (Safltfuip.  Some  MSS.  have  padex^P,  an(l  the  MSS.  of  Jose- 
phus have  j37)0tfio/3,  which  Winston  translates  Bethezub. 

ITT.  7.] 



serve  thec?  Slaves  among  the  Romans  we  shall 
be  even  if  we  are  allowed  to  live  by  them.  But 
even  slavery  is  anticipated  by  the  famine,  and 
the  rioters  are  more  cruel  than  both.  Come,  be 
food  for  me,  a  fury  for  these  rioters, cS  and  a  bye- 
word  to  the  world,  for  this  is  all  that  is  wanting 
to  complete  the  calamities  of  the  Jews.  And 
when  she  had  said  this  she  slew  her  son  ; 

28  and   having  roasted  him,  she  ate  one  half 
herself,  and  covering  up  the  remainder,  she 

kept  it.  Very  soon  the  rioters  appeared  on  the 
scene,  and,  smelling  the  nefarious  odor,  they 
threatened  to  slay  her  immediately  unless  she 
should  show  them  what  she  had  prepared.  She 
replied  that  she  had  saved  an  excellent  portion 
for  them,  and  with  that  she  uncovered  the 

29  remains  of  the  child.     They  were  immedi- 
ately seized  with    horror  and    amazement, 

and  stood  transfixed  at  the  sight.  But  she  said, 
This  is  my  own  son,  and  the  deed  is  mine.  Kut, 
for  I  too  have  eaten.  Be  not  more  merciful 
than  a  woman,  nor  more  compassionate  than  a 
mother.  But  if  you  are  too  pious  and  shrink 
from  my  sacrifice,  I  have  already9  eaten  of 

30  it ;    let   the   rest   also  remain  for  me.      At 
these  words  the  men  went  out  trembling,  in 

this  one  case  being  affrighted  ;  yet  with  difficulty 
did  they  yield  that  food  to  the  mother.      Forth- 
with   the   whole  city  was   filled  with  the   awfnl 
-rime,  and  as  all  pictured  the  terrible  deed  be- 
fore their  own  eyes,  they  trembled  as  if  they 
had  done  it  themselves.     Those  that  were 
•uffering  from   the  famine   now  longed  for 
death  ;  and  blessed  were  they  that  had  died  be- 
fore hearing  and  seeing  miseries  like  these." 
32          Such  was  the  reward  which  the  Jews  re- 
ceived   for   their   wickedness    and    impiety 
against  the  Christ  of  God. 


The  Predictions  of  Christ, 

1  IT  is  fitting  to  add  to  these  accounts  the 
true  prediction  of  our  Saviour  in  which  he 

2  foretold  these  very  events.      His  words  are 
as  follows  : l  "  Woe  unto  them  that  are  with 

child,  and  to  them  that  give  suck  in  those 
clays  !  But  pray  ye  that  your  flight  be  not  in 
the  winter,  neither  on  the  Sabbath  day.  For 

s  "  In  accordance  with  the  idea  that  the  souls  of  the  murdered 
tormented,  as  furies,  those  who  were  most  guilty  of  their  death" 

'•'  >}(5j).  All  the  MSS.  of  Euscbius  read  vn<av.  Some  of  the  MSS. 
of  Josephtis  read  i)<5j),  and  Rufinus  translates  nan:  ,-t  i v<>  /  f  /,<>• 
cotnedi.  Valesius,  without  MS.  authority  (but  apparently  with  the 
support  of  some  MSS.  of  (osephus,  for  Whiston  translates  "one- 
half")  reads  i)ut-r..,  a  half)  and  he  is  followed  by  the  English  and 
German  translators.  Some  change  from  the  reading  of  the  MSS. 
of  Eusebius  is  certainly  necessary;  and  though  the  alteration  made 
by  Valesius  produces  very  good  sense  and  seems  quite  natural,  I 
have  preferred  to  accept  the  reading  which  is  given  by  many  of  the 
MSS.  of  Josephus,  and  which  has  the  support  of  Rufmus. 

1  Matt.  xxiv.  iQ-2j. 

there  shall  be  great  tribulation,  such  as  was  not 
since  the  beginning  of  the  world  to  this  time, 
no,  nor  ever  shall  be." 

The  historian,  reckoning  the  whole  num-  3 
bcr  of  the  slain,  says  that  eleven  hundred 
thousand  persons  perished  by  famine  and  sword,'-' 
and  that  the  rest  of  the  rioters  and  robbers,  being 
betrayed  by  each  other  after  the  taking  of  the  city, 
were  slain.1"'  But  the  tallest  of  the-  youths  and  those 
that  were  distinguished  for  beauty  were  preserved 
for  the  triumph.  Of  the  rest  of  the  multitude, 
those  that  were  over  seventeen  years  of  age  were 
sent  as  prisoners  to  labor  in  the  works  of  Fgypt,4 
while  still  more  were  scattered  through  the  prov- 
inces to  meet  their  death  in  the  theaters  by  the 
sword  and  by  beasts.  Those  under  seventeen 
years  of  age  were  carried  away  to  be  sold  as 
slaves,  and  of  these  alone  the  number 
reached  ninety  thousand.1"'  These  things  4 
took  place  in  this  manner  in  the  second 
year  of  the  reign  of  Vespasian,'1  in  accordance 
with  the  prophecies  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour 
Jesus  Christ,  who  by  divine  power  saw  them  be- 
forehand as  if  they  were  already  present,  and 
wept  and  mourned  according  to  the  statement 
of  the  holy  evangelists,  who  give  the  very  words 
which  he  uttered,  when,  as  if  addressing 
Jerusalem  herself,  he  said  : "  ''  If  thou  hadst  5 
known,  even  th"n,  in  this  day,  the  things 
which  belong  unto  thy  peace  !  But  now  they 
are  hid  from  thine  eyes.  For  the  days  shall  come 
upon  thee,  that  thine  enemies  shall  cast  a  rampart 
about  thee,  and  compass  thee  round,  and  keep 
thee  in  on  every  side,  and  shall  lay  thee  and 
thy  children  even  with  the  ground."  And  6 
then,  as  if  speaking  concerning  the  people, 
he  says,s  "  For  there  shall  be  great  distress  in 
the  land,  and  wrath  upon  this  people.  And  they 
shall  fall  by  the  edge  of  the  sword,  and  shall  be 
led  away  captive  into  all  nations.  And  Jerusa- 
lem shall  be  trodden  down  of  the  Gentiles,  until 
the  times  of  the  Gentiles  be  fulfilled."  And 
again :  'J  "  When  ye  shall  see  Jerusalem  com- 

-  Josephus,  />.  J,  I5k.  VI.  chap,  o,  §  3.  Josephus  simply  says 
that  the  whole  number  of  those  that  perished  during  the  siege  was 
1,100,000;  he  does  not  specify  the  manner  of  their  death.  (  hi  the 
accuracy  of  the  numbers  which  he  gives,  see  above,  chap.  5,  note  13. 

3  Ibid.  §  2. 

4  i-.j  Ta  KO.T' ' \iyvTTTov  tyyi.     The  works  meant  are  the  great 
stone  quarries  of   Egypt   (commonly  called   the    mines   of   Egypt), 
which  furnished  a  considerable  part   of  the  finest   marble    used   for 
building    purposes    in    Rome    and    elsewhere.       The   quarries   were 
chiefly  in   the  hands  of  the   Roman    government,  and  the   work  of 
(juarrying   was    done  largely   by   captives    taken    in   war,  as    in    the 
present  case. 

"'  Josephus  does  not  say  that  the  number  of  those  sold  as  slaves 
was  upward  of  90,000,  as  Eusebius  asserts,  but  simply  (//>/</.  §  3)  that 
the  number  of  captives  taken  during  the  whole  war  was  97,000,  a 
number  which  Eusebius,  through  an  error,  applies  to  the  one  class 
of  prisoners  that  were  sold  as  slaves. 

"  In  />'.  7.  Bk.  VI.  8.  5  and  10.  i  Josephus  puts  the  completion 
of  the  siege  on  the  eighth  of  the  month  Elul  (September! ,  and  in  the 
second  passage  he  puts  it  in  the  second  year  of  Vespasian.  Vespa- 
sian was  proclaimed  emperor  in  Egypt  July  i,  69,  so  that  Sept. 
8  of  his  second  year  would  be  Sept.  8,  A.I).  70.  (L'f.  Srhurer, 
.V.  T.  7.,-itKvsch.  p.  347-) 

'    Luke  xix.  42-44. 

8  ll>id.  xxi.  23,  24.  *  Ibid,  verse  20. 


[III.  7. 

passed  with  armies,  then  know  that   the  desola- 
tion thereof  is  nigh." 

7  If  any  one   compares   the  words   of  our 
Saviour  with  the  other  accounts  oi   the   his- 
torian  concerning  the  whole  \v  ir,  how  cm  one 
fail  to  wonder,  and  to  admit  that  the  foreknowl- 
edge and  the  prophec\  of  our  Saviour  were 

8  truly  divine  and  marvellously  strange.1"  Con- 
cerning those  calamities,  then,  that  befell  the 

whole  fewish  nation  after  the  Saviour's  passion 
and  after  the  words  which  the  multitude  of  the 
jews  uttered,  when  they  lagged  the  release  of 
the  robber  and  murderer,  but  besought  that  the 
Prince  of  Life  should  be  taken  from  their  midst,11 
it  is  not  necessary  to  add  anything  to  the 

9  account  of  the  historian.      But  it  may  be 
proper  to  mention  also  those  events  which 

exhibited  the  graciousness  of  that  all-good  Provi- 
dence which  held  back  their  destruction  full  forty 
years  after  their  crime  against  Christ,  —  during 
which  time  many  of  the  apostles  and  disciples, 
and  lames  himself  the  first  bishop  there,  the 
one  who  is  called  the  brother  of  the  Lord,1- were 
still  alive,  and  dwelling  in  Jerusalem  itself,  re- 
mained the  surest  bulwark  of  the  place.  Divine 
Providence  thus  still  proved  itself  long-suffering 
toward  them  in  order  to  see  whether  by  repent- 
ance for  what  they  had  done  they  might  obtain 
pardon  and  salvation;  and  in  addition  to  such 
long-suffering,  Providence  also  furnished  won- 
derful signs  of  the  things  which  were  about 

to  happen  to  them  if  they  did  not  repent. 
10  Since  these  matters  have  been  thought 

worthy  of  mention  by  the  historian  already 
cited,  we  cannot  do  better  than  to  recount  them 
for  the  benefit  of  the  readers  of  this  work. 

The  Signs  which  preceded  the  War. 

1  TAKING,   then,  the  work  of   this   author, 

read  what  he  records  in  the  sixth  book  of 
his  History.  His  words  are  as  follows  :l  "Thus 
were  the  miserable  people  won  over  at  this  time 
by  the  impostors  and  false  prophets  ;  -  but  they 

did  not  heed  nor  give  credit  to  the  visions  and 
signs  that   foretold   the  approaching   desolation. 
On  the  contrary,  as  if  struck  by  lightning,  and  as 
if  possessing  neither  eyes  nor  understanding, 
they  slighted  the  proclamations  of  (iod.    At       2 
one  time  a  star,  in  form  like  a  sword,  stood 
over  the  city,  and  a  comet,  which  lasted  for  a  whole 
year  ;  and  again  before  the  revolt  and  before  the 
disturbances  that  led  to  the  war,  when  the  people 
were  gathered  for  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread, 
on  the  eighth   of  the  month  Xanthicus,3  at  the 
ninth  hour  of  the  night,  so  great  a  light  shone 
about  the  altar  and  the  temple  that  it  seemed  to 
be  bright  day  ;  and   this   continued   for  half  an 
hour.    This  seemed  to  the  unskillful  a  good  sign, 
but  was  interpreted  by  the  sacred  scribes  as  por- 
tending those  events  which  very  soon  took 
place.     And  at  the   same  feast  a  cow,  led       3 
by  the  high  priest  to  be  sacrificed,  brought 
forth  a  lamb  in  the  midst  of  the  temple. 
And  the  eastern  gate  of  the  inner  temple,       4 
which  was  of  bron/.e  and  very  massive,  and 
which  at  evening  was  closed  with   difficulty  by 
twenty  men,  and  rested  upon  iron-bound  beams, 
and  had  bars  sunk  deep  in  the  ground,  was  seen 
at  the  sixth  hour  of  the  night  to  open  of 
itself.     And  not  many  days  after  the  feast,        5 
>n  the   twenty-first  of  the   month  Artcmi- 
sium,'*  a  certain  marvelous  vision  was  seen  which 
masses  belief.     The  prodigy  might  seem   fabu- 
.ous  were  it  not  related  by  those  who  saw  it,  and 
,vere  not  the  calamities  which  followed  deserv- 
ng  of  such   signs.      For  before   the  setting  of 
the   sun   chariots   and   armed  troops  were  seen 
throughout  the  whole  region  in  mid-air,  wheeling 
through  the  clouds  and  encircling  the  cities. 
And  at  the  feast  which  is  called  Pentecost,       6 
when   the    priests   entered    the    temple   at 
night,  as  was  their  custom,  to  perform  the  ser- 
vices, they   said  that  at  first   they  perceived  a 
movement  and  a  noise,  and  afterward  a  voice  as 
of  a  great  multitude,  saying,  '  Let   us   go 
hence.'5      But  what   follows   is  still    more        7 
terrible ;    for  a    certain  Jesus,   the    son   of 
Ananias,  a  common  countryman,  four  years  be- 
fore   the  war,0  when   the  city  was   particularly 

10  It  is  but  right  to  remark  that  not  merely  the  negative  school 
of  critics,  but  even  many  conservative  s<  h-.lais  (e.g.  Weiss)  put  t:ie 
composition  of  the  Gospel  of  Luke  after  the   year  70,  because  its  es- 
chatological    discourses  seem  to  bear   the   marl;  o!    having  been   re- 
corded after   ihe  fulfillment  of  the  prediclio  i,   differing  as  they  do 
in  many  particulars  from  the  accounts  of  the  same  discourse- 
in  Matthew  and   Mark.      To  cile   a  single   instance:    i:i    the  passag 
quoted  just  above  from  Luke  xxi.  2':,  the  armies  encompassing  Jeru 
salem  are  mentioned,  while  in  parallel  passages  in  the  other  Go.spcL 
(Matt.  xxiv.  15  and   Mark    xiii.  14!  n..t   armies,   but   "the  abomina- 
tion of  desolation   standing  in   the   h  >lv  pi. ire  "  is  spoken  of  as  the 
sign.      Compare  the  various  commeularii  s  upon  the-  e  passages. 

11  Compare   Acts   iii.    14,    aad   see    Mall.   xvii.    -.:•>,    Mark    xv.    I 
Luke  xxii.  iS.  '"   See  above,  I'-k.  1.  chap.  12,  note  14 

1  Josephus,  n.  7.  Hk.  VI.  chap.  ',  §  3. 

2  Kimt'j,  >'-',/'H'ot  niii  ('DP.     In  ihe  pvcvio  :s  paragraph  Josephus 
says  that  a  [Meat  many  false  prophets  were   -ub  .rued  by  the  tyrai 
to  on  the  people.      It  is  lo  these  fal-.e  |  r..,Vt.  tl 
he  refers  here,  and  1  have  consequently  fell  al   librrty  thus   to   Irai 
late  the  Greek  word  given,  i:.  -va d  -f  rendering  merely  "  h; 

against  God"  (as  Cruse  does),  which  is  indefinite,  and  might  have 
various  meanings. 

'•'•  The  feast  referred  to  is  the  feast  of  the  Passover,  ihe  Greek 
name  of  the  month  used  here  is  gai'Siico*,  which  was  the  name  of  a 
Macedonian  mouth  corresponding  to  our  April.  According  to  Wins- 
ton, Josephus  regularly  used  this  name  for  the  Jewish  month  JSusan 
(the  first  month  of  the  Jewish  year),  in  which  case  thus  event  took 
place  six  days  before  the  Passover,  which  began  on  the  141(1  of  Ptisan. 

•'  '  Vp-f/ji'Tcos-.  According  to  Liddell  and  Scott,  this  was  a  Spar- 
tan and  Macedonian  month  corresponding  to  a  part  of  the  ninth 
Attic  month  (.-'Aa^oAuu,.) ,  which  in  turn  corresponded  to  the 
latter  part  of  our  March  and  the  early  part  of  April.  According  to 
Wieseler,  Josephus  used  the  word  to  denote  the  second  month  ot  tne 
Jewish  year,  the  month  lyar. 

<r>  The  majority  of  the  MSS.  of  Eusebms  read  ^.fTa^aivo^fv,  we 
go  hence."  But  at  least  one  of  the  best  MSS.  and  a  majority  of  the 
'MSS.  of  Josephus,  supported  by  Rufinus  and  Jerome  (who  render 
mieremits)  read  ^eraftaiviaiJiev,  "  let  us  go  hence,  and  1  have  fol- 
lowed Stephanus,  Valesius,  Stroth,  and  the  English  and  German 
translators  in  adopting  that  reading. 

«  That  is.  in  62  A.,).,  for,  according  to  Josephus.  Ihe  war  began 

III.  9.J 


prosperous  and  peaceful,  came  to  the,  :;i 
which  il  was  customary  for  all  to  make  tents  at 
the  temple  to  the  honor  of  God,7  and  suddenly 
began  to  cry  out:  'A  voice  from  the  east,  a 
voice  from  the  west,  a  voice  from  the  four  winds, 
a  voice  against  Jerusalem  and  the  temple,  a  voice 
against  bridegrooms  and  brides,  a  voice  against 
all  the  people.'  Day  and  night  he  went 
3  through  all  the  alleys  crying  thus.  I!ut  cer- 
tain of  the  more  distinguished  citizens, 
vexed  at  the  ominous  cry,  sei/ed  the  man  and 
beat  him  with  many  stripes.  I'ut  without  utter- 
ing a  word  in  his  own  behalf,  or  saying  anything 
in  particular  to  those  that  were  present,  he  con- 
tinued to  cry  out  in  the  snmc  words  as  be- 

9  fore.      And  the  rulers,  thinking,  as  was  true, 
that  the  man  was  moved  by  a  higher  power, 

brought  him  before  the  Roman  governor.1"  And 
then,  though  he  was  scourged  to  the  bone,  he 
neither  made  supplication  nor  shed  tears,  but, 
changing  his  voice  to  the  most  lamentable  tone 
possible,  he  answered  each  stroke  with  the 
words,  '  Woe,  woe  unto  Jerusalem.'" 

10  The  same  historian  records  another  fact 
still   more  wonderful  than  this.      lie  says'-' 

that  a  certain  oracle  was  found  in  their  sacred 
writings  which  declared  that  at  that  time  a  cer- 
tain person  should  go  forth  from  their  country 
to  rule  the  world.     He  himself  understood 

11  that  this    was   fulfilled   in   Vespasian.     l»ut 
Vespasian  did  not  rule  the  whole  world,  but 

only  that  part  of  it  which  was  subject  to  the 
Romans.  With  better  right  could  it  be  applied 
to  Christ ;  to  whom  it  was  said  by  the  Father, 
"  Ask  of  me,  and  1  will  give  thee  the  heathen 
for  thine  inheritance,  and  the  ends  of  the  earth 
for  thy  possession."  ln  At  that  very  time,  indeed, 
the  voice  of  his  holy  apostles  "  went  throughout 
all  the  earth,  and  their  words  to  the  end  of  the 
world."  " 


Josephus  and  t/ic  IVorks  which  he  has  left. 

1  AFTER  all  this  it  is  fitting  that  we  should 

know  something  in  regard  to  the  origin  and 
family  of  Josephus,  who  has  contributed  so  much 
to  the  history  in  hand.  He  himself  gives  us  in- 
formation on  this  point  in  the  following  words  :J 

in  66  A.D.  A  little  further  on,  Josephus  says  that  he  continued  his 
cry  for  seven  years  and  five  months,  when  he  was  slain  during  the 
siege  of  Jerusalem.  This  shows  that  he  is  here,  as  well  as  else- 
where, reckoning  the  date  of  the  beginning  of  the  war  as  66  A.D. 

7  That  is,  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  which  began  on  the  fifteenth 
day  of  the  seventh  month  of  the  Jewish  year,  and  continued  seven 

8  This  was  Albinus,  as  we  should   know  from   the  date  of  the 
event,  and  as  Josephus  directly  states  in  the  context.     He  was  pro- 
curator from  61  or  62  to  64  A.D.     Sec  above,   P>k.  II.   chap.  23,  note 
35,  and  chap.  22,  note  i. 

'•'  See  Josephus,  H.  J.  VI.  5.  4,  and  cf.  Hid.  III.  8.  q. 
111  Ps.  li.  8.  "   Ps.  xix.  4. 

1   li.  y.,  Preface,  §  i.     We  have  an  original  source  for  the  life  of 
Josephus,  not  only  in  his  various  works,  in  which  lie  makes  frequent 

u  Josephus,  the  son  of    Mattathias,  a    priest  of 
Jerusalem,  w:,,>  himself  fought  against   the   Ro- 
mans in  the  beginning  and  was  compelled  to 
be  present  at  what  happened  afterward."   lie       2 
was  the  most  noted  of  all  the  [ews  oi'that  day, 
not  only  among  his  own  people,  but  also  among 
the  Romans,  so  that  he  was  honored  bv  the  erec- 
tion of  a  staLue   in  Rome,-  and   his  works  were 
deemed  worthy  of  a  place   in  the  library." 
He  wrote   the  whole   of  the  Antiquities  of       3 
the  Jews'1  in  twenty  books,  and  a  history  of 
the  war  with  the   Romans  which  took  place   in 
his  time,  in  seven  books."'      He  himself  testifies 
that    the    latter  work  was    not  only  written    in 
Greek,  but  that  it  was  also  translated  bv  himself 

reference  to  himself,  but  also  in  bis  autobiography,  which  was  writ- 
ten after  the  year  loo.  Tin:  work  was  occ  isioncd  by  the  (  'Itnniii  /,' 
of  Jtisms  nf  Tiberias,  which  had  represented  him  as  more  patriotic 
ami  iii  -10  hostile  to  the  Konrins  than  he  liked,  and  he  therefore  felt 
impelled  to  paint  himself  in  the  hl.icL.M  of  colors,  ns  a  traitor  and 
rencg-u!e, —  probably  much  blacker  tl.-ui  he  really  was.  It  is  de- 
voted chielly  to  an  account  of  the  intrigues  and  plots  funned  against 
him  while  he  was  governor  of  Galilee,  arid  contains  little  of  general 
biographical  interest,  except  in  the  introduction  ami  the  conclusion. 
Josephus  \vas  of  a  prie-Uy  family, —  his  father  M:\lthiu-;  belonging 
to  the  lir-.t  of  the  twenty-four  conr-es,  —  and  he  was  in  the  lirsl 
year  of  (,'aitis  (',-esar;  i.e.  in  the  year  Ix-ginning  March  i^1,  37  A.D. 
He  played  a  prominent  part  in  the  Jeui>h  war,  being  entrusted  with 
the  duty,  as  governor  of  Galilee  and  commander  of  the  f  iires  there, 
of  meeting  and  opposing  Vespasian,  who  attacked  that  province 
first.  ILe  was,  however,  defeated,  and  gave  himself  up  to  the  vic- 
tors, in  the  summer  of  67.  He  was  treated  with  honor  in  the  camp 
of  the  Romans,  whom  he  served  until  the  end  of  the  war,  and  be- 
came a  favorite  and  flatterer  of  the  Vespasian  house,  incurring 
thereby  the  everlasting  contempt  of  his  countrymen.  He  went  to 
Rome  at  the  close  of  the  war,  and  lived  in  prosperity  there  until 
early  in  the  second  century.  His  works  are  our  chief  souice  for  a 
knowledge  of  Jewish  affairs  from  the  time  of  the  Maccabees,  and  as 
such  are,  and  will  always  remain,  indispensable,  and  their  author 
immortal,  whatever  his  character.  He  \vas  a  man  of  learning  and  of 
talent,  but  of  inordinate,  selfishness  and  self-esteem.  He  was  for- 
merly accused  of  great  inaccuracy,  and  hi.^  works  were  considered  a 
very  poor  historical  source;  but  later  investigations  have  increased 
his  credit,  and  he  seems,  upon  the  whole,  to  have  been  a  historian 
of  unusual  ability  and  conscientiousness. 

-  Eusebius  is  the  only  one,  so  far  as  we  know,  to  mention  this 
statue  in  Rome,  and  what  authority  there  is  for  his  statement  we 
cannot  tell. 

"  In  §  64  of  his  Life  Josephus  tells  us  that  Titus  was  so  much 
pleased  with  his  accounts  of  the  Jewish  war  that  he  subscribed  his 
name  to  them,  and  ordered  them  published  (see  the  next  chapter, 
§  8  sqq.,  where  the  passage  is  quoted).  The  first  public  library  in 
Rome,  according  to  Pliny,  was  founded  by  Pollio  (76  D.C.-4  A.D.). 
The  one  referred  to  here  is  undoubtedly  the  imperial  library,  which, 
according  to  Suetonius,  was  originally  established  by  Augustus  in 
the  temple  of  Apollo  on  the  Palatine,  and  contained  two  sections, — 
one  for  Greek,  and  the  other  for  Latin  works.  It  was  greatly  en- 
larged by  Tiberius  and  Domitian. 

'*  'louSai-Kr;  'ApxmoAoyi'a,  Aiitiquiintes  'J'ndnicu1.  This  work, 
which  is  still  extant,  is  Josephus'  most  extensive  work,  and  aims  to 
give,  in  twenty  books,  a  complete  history  of  the  Jews,  from  the  time 
of  Abraham  to  the  beginning  of  the  great  war  with  Rome.  The  ob- 
ject of  the  work  is  mainly  apologetic,  the  author  aiming  to  place 
Judaism  before  Gentile  readers  in  as  favorable  a  light  as  possible. 
It  contains  much  legendary  matter,  but  is  the  main  source  for  our 
knowledge  of  a  long  period  of  Jewish  history,  and  as  such  is  invalu- 
able. The  work  was  completed,  according  to  his  own  statement 
(XX.  ii.  2),  in  the  thirteenth  year  of  Domitian  (93-94  A.D.) ,  and 
frequently  corrects  erroneous  statements  made  in  his  earlier  \\ork 
upon  the  Jewish  war. 

"  'Icr-ropi'a  'Iou5aiKoO  ;r.),\t/j.ou  irpi<?  'Pw/i(/torc,  lie  7i'e!.'t>  Jit- 
daico.  This  work,  in  seven  books,  constitutes  our  most  complete 
and  trustworthy  source  for  a  knowledge  of  that  great  war,  so  mo- 
mentous in  its  consequences  both  to  Judaism  and  to  Christianity. 
The  author  wrote  from  personal  knowledge  of  many  of  the  events 
described,  and  had,  besides,  access  to  extensive  and  reliable  written 
sources;  and  the  general  accuracy  of  the  work  may  therefore  l.-j 
accepted.  He  says  that  he  undertook  the  work  for  the  purpose  of 
giving  a  true  narrative  of  the  war,  in  consequence  of  the  many  false 
and  distorted  accounts  which  had  already  appeared  in  various  quar- 
ters. He  presented  the  uork,  when  finished,  to  Vespasian  and 
Titus,  and  obtained  their  approval  and  testimony  to  its  trustwor- 
thiness; and  hence  it  mu-t  have  been  written  during  the  reign  .'I 
Vespasian,  probably  toward  the  end  of  it,  as  other  work-,  up  m  th< 
war  hod  prro,-d.-d  his  (A.  ?.,  Preface,  §  i). 



cm.  9. 

into  his  native  tongue.*1     He  is  worthy  of  credit 
here   because"  of   his    truthfulness   in   other 

4  matters.      There  are  extant  also  two  other 
books  of  his  which  are  worth  reading.   They 

treat  of  the  antiquity  of  the  Jews/  and  in  them 
he  replies  to  . \pion  the  Grammarian,  who  had  at 
that  time  written  a  treatise  against  the  Jews,  and 
also  to  others  who  had  attempted  to  vilify  the 
hereditary  institutions  of  the  Jewish  people. 

5  In   the    first   of  these    books    he   gives    the 
number  of  the  canonical   books  of  the   so- 
called  ( )ld  Testament.     Apparently8  drawing  his 
information    from    ancient    tradition,   he    shows 
\vhat     books     were     accepted    without     dispute 
amoiv  the  1  lebrews.      His  words  are  as  follows. 


in   which    fotephtis   mention^ 

Divine  Books. 

1  •'  \\~F,  have  not.  therefore,  a  multitude  of 

and  conflicting  with  one 

books  disaerreein 

us   (/.'.  ?'.,  Preface,   §  i; 

erts  the  fact,  making  the  Greek  t 

•;  The  work,   as 
ntra  Apion.  1.  9 
Aramaic,  —ami  aft 
the  help  of  others.      Ku 

•  The  full  title  of  this  work  is  the  Apology  cf  Flavins  Josephus 
flu  the  Antiquities  of  the  Je^s  a&iinst  Apian  (~cp!  apv"('Tr)T°s 
'1  ,i>nai'wr  Kara  'A-iwi-o?,  De  Antiquitate  Juda'Orum  contra  Apio- 
item).  It  is  ordinarily  cited  simply  as  contra  Apionein  (Against 
.  i  f'i.'ii).  It  consists  of  two  books,  and  is,  in  fact,  nothing  else  than  an 
apology  for  [ndiism  in  general,  and  to  a  less  extent,  a  defense  of 
himself  and  his  firmer  work  (the  A  ;:t  >,].:'!  ',  :•  a..',  ii  ist  hostile  critics. 
The  common  title,  contra  Apwneni,  is  rather  misleading,  as  he  is 
not  once  mentioned  in  the  first  book,  although  in  the  first  part  of  the 
second  hook  lie  is  attacked  with  considerable  bitterness  and  through 
him  a  large  class  of  enemies  and  detractors  of  Judaism.  (Upon  Apioa, 
the  famous  Alexandrian  and  the  bitter  enemy  of  the  Jews,  see  above, 
l',k.  II.  chap.  5,  note  5.)  The  work  is  Josephus'  best  effort  from  a 
literary  point  of  view,  and  shows  both  learning  and  ability,  and  in 
spite  of  its  brevity  contains  much  of  great  value.  It  was  written 
after  his  Antiquities  (i.e.  after  93  A.D.),  how  long  afterward  we 
cannot  tell.  These  three  works  of  Josephus,  with  his  autobiography 
already  mentioned  (note  i),  arc  all  that  are  extant,  although  he 
seems  to  have  written  another  work  relating  to  the  history  of  the 
Seleucidie  (cf.  A::t.  Xlll.  2.  i,  2.  4,  4.6,  5.  n)  of  which  not  a  trac 
remains,  and  which  is  mentioned  by  no  one  else.  The  other  work 
planned  by  Josephus—  On  God  and  his  Essence  (Ant.  XX 
n.  3),  and  On  the  La-us  of  the  Je-vs  (//'/V.  and  Ant.  III.  5-  6 
8.  10)  —  seem  never  to  have  been  written.  (They  are  mentions 
also  by  Euscbius  in  the  next  chapter.)  Other  compositions  at- 
tributed to  him  are  not  from  his  hand.  The  best  edition  of  the 
works  of  Josephus  is  that  of  Benedict  Niese  (Berlin,  1885  sq.),' 
which  the  first  two  volumes  have  been  already  issued,  compnsin 
ten  books  of  the  Antiquities.  A  good  complete  edition  is  that 
Dmdorf  (Paris,  1845-47,  2  vols.).  That  of  Bekker  (Leipzig,  183 
6  vols.)  is  very  convenient.  The  only  complete  English  translatio 
is  by  Whiston,  unfortunately  uncritical  and  inaccurate.  I'!  -. 
translation  of  the  Jewish  W'ar  (London,  1862)  is  a  great  improve 
ment,  but  do.-s  not  cover  the  remainder  of  Josephus'  works.  Up  >' 
Josephus  an  1  his  writings,  see  the  article  of  Kdersheim  in  the  /'/./' 
of  Christ.  I'<.'0g.  III.  441-460,  and  compare  the  literature  givei 
there.  *  u>  ''<-''• 

1  Aif.u'itst  Apion,  I.  8.  The  common  Christian  tradition  (sine. 
the  first  century,  when  it  was  stated  in  the  fourth  book  of  Ezra  xiv 
44  sii.)  is  that  Ezra  was  the  compiler  of  the  Old  Testament  canon 
This,  however,  is  a  mistake,  for  the  canon  was  certainly  not  com 
plcted  before  the  time  of  Judas  Josephus  is^the  earli 
est  writer  to  give  us  a  summary  of  the  b  >oks  of  t'.ie  Old  Testament 
and  he  evidently  gives  not  merely  his  own  private  opinion,  but  th 

commonly  accepted  canon  of  his  day. 
rate  books,  but  he  tells  us  that  they 
number   of  the    letters  of  the   Hebre 
three  divisions,  so  that  we  are  able  t 
It  was  doubtless  as  follows:  — 
1-5.   P.ooks  of  Moses. 

6.  Joshua. 

7.  judges  and  Ruth. 

nother  ;    but  we   have   only   twenty-two,  which 
ontain  the  record  of  all  time  and  are  justly 
ield    to  be  divine.     Of  these,  five   are  by       2 
Moses,  and  contain  the  laws  and  the  tradi- 

'he  earliest  detailed  list  of  OldTestan 
given  by  Eusebins,  IV.  26),  which  is  a 

f  Genesis, 
ks  |   Kxodus. 

says  nothing  of  the  number  twenty-two,  and,  in  fact,  his  list, 
ives  it,  numbers  only  twenty-one.     His  list  really  differs  from 

osephus'  only  in  omitting  the  Hook  of  Esther.     This  omission  may 
ie   accidental,    though   it    is   omitted    by    Athanasius    and    Gregory 

Nazianzen.  He  makes  no  mention  of  Nehemiah,  but^that  is  doubt- 
ess  included  with  R/ra,  as  in  the  case  of  Josephus  canon.  His 
•anon  purports  to  be  the  Palestinian  one,  and  hence  we  should  ex- 
ic-ct  it  to  he  the  same  as  that  of  Josephus,  which  makes  it  more 
irobable  that  the  omission  of  Esther  was  only  accidental.  Origen 
'in  Eusebins,  VI.  25)  tells  us  that  there  were  twenty-two  books  in 
he  Hebrew  canon;  but  his  list  differs  somewhat  from  that  of  Jose- 
jluis.  It  is  as  fo 

=;.   Song  of  Songs. 

6    (Twelve      Mine 

7.  Isaiah. 

8.  Jeremiah,  Lamentations,  and 



19.   Daniel. 
20    E/ekiel. 
27.  Job. 
22.  Esther. 

o  w  s :  — 
-5.  Rooks  of  Moses. 

6.  Joshua. 

7.  Judges  and  Ruth. 

8.  Samuel. 

9.  Rings. 

10.   Chronicles, 
ii     E/ra  I.  and  II. 

12.  Psalms. 

13.  Proverbs.